papajohns_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it delivers: it lists the returned profile contents, defines the required input provenance, and warns that directory paths produce a 404. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the read-only 'Get' semantics and published-profile return make the behavior clear enough.

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 compact and front-loads the action and return summary; the error behavior is placed at the end. It loses a point for redundancy ('Get one Papa John's store' followed by 'returns one Papa John's store's published profile') and the awkward double possessive, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return fields, the input source, and the main failure mode. It could name the companion tools for discovery (directory, nearby), but the information needed to call this tool correctly is present.

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% and the schema already describes the path as a store path from a /papajohns/directory child marked is_store=true. The tool description reinforces that origin ('path comes from a store child') but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific verb-resource pair ('Get one Papa John's store') and enumerates the exact payload fields returned. It distinguishes itself from the directory sibling by noting the input must come from a /papajohns/directory store child, and that directory paths return 404. This is enough for an agent to select the tool among competitors.

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?

It explicitly states where the path parameter comes from ('a store child returned by GET /papajohns/directory') and gives a clear negative case ('Passing a directory path returns 404'). It does not name alternative tools like papajohns_nearby or the international store variants, but the source-path guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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