papajohns_russia_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the catalog is national (not city-variant), that every product lists priced variants with size, dough, and stuffed crust, and that prices are in roubles and not comparable with other markets. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or whether it returns the full menu by default, but for a menu-fetch tool the behavioral context given is strong.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the Papa John's Russia priced menu (RUB)') before adding market-scope context. Every sentence earns its place: the platform separation, the national catalog, and the price incomparability warning are all useful. It is slightly long but not bloated.

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 simple menu-fetch tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what market, what currency, how it differs from siblings, and what the catalog contains. It doesn't describe the exact return shape, but with no output schema and a straightforward menu resource, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional 'category' parameter. The description adds value by explaining the catalog structure (priced variants, size, dough, stuffed crust) and that the menu is national, which helps an agent understand what filtering by category would return. It doesn't repeat the parameter details, but with full schema coverage the baseline is 3 and the added context pushes it to 4.

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 gets the Papa John's Russia priced menu in RUB, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Papa John's Russia priced menu'). It explicitly distinguishes this endpoint from the international, Colombia, Peru, and El Salvador menus, and from the Poland sibling, so an agent can tell it apart from papajohns_poland_menu and papajohns_intl_menu without opening schemas.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: for the Russia market, which runs on a separate franchise platform from the six markets behind GET /papajohns/intl/menu and from Colombia, Peru, and El Salvador. It also notes Poland shares the same platform but has its own endpoint, effectively routing the agent to papajohns_poland_menu for Poland. This is clear when-to-use guidance with alternatives named.

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