papajohns_peru_menu

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it is largely sufficient. It identifies the operation as read-only ('Get', 'Returns') and describes the output's contents (categories, images, per-product pricing in Peruvian soles) plus the warning that prices are not comparable across markets. It omits specifics like response structure or pagination, but for a menu endpoint these are not critical.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences and front-loads the core purpose ('Get... menu') before adding context. It is not overly verbose, but the second and third sentences add important differentiation and caveats that justify their length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with only one optional parameter, a Max output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what the resource is, what it returns, and important context (currency, market scope). It would benefit from explicit note that a category filter limits the result set, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes the single optional 'category' parameter with concrete details (case-insensitive substring match, examples). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond saying the catalog is full. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Get the Papa John's Peru priced menu,' specifying a clear verb, resource, and region. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly referencing the six markets served by GET /papajohns/intl/menu and Colombia/El Salvador, making selection unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: for Peru. It explains the platform independence from the six intl markets and Colombia/El Salvador and warns that prices are not comparable across markets. This effectively communicates when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.