papajohns_poland_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns priced variants with size, dough, and stuffed crust, and notes prices are not comparable with other markets. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any potential side effects, but for a menu retrieval tool this is a minor omission. The description adds context about the national scope and product details, which is helpful.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary context about the franchise platform separation and the national scope, though there is slight redundancy in mentioning PLN twice. Overall, it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns: a priced menu with product variants, national scope, and currency. It also clarifies the market separation. For a simple menu retrieval, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It does not mention pagination or item count, but that is likely not critical for a menu.

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 schema description for the 'category' parameter is fully covered (100%), so the tool description does not need to add more. The description does not mention the category parameter at all, but since the schema already documents it well, 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 clearly states the tool returns the Papa John's Poland menu with prices in PLN, and explicitly distinguishes it from other market endpoints (international, Colombia, Peru, El Salvador, Russia). The verb 'Get' and resource are specific, and it is clearly differentiated from the many papajohns sibling tools.

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 explains that Russia and Poland use a separate franchise platform and each has its own endpoint, implying this tool is for Poland specifically. It also notes the catalog is national and does not vary by city, which helps an agent decide when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., papajohns_russia_menu) but the separation is clear enough.

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