pizzahut_bundle_choices

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 the return structure (choice-builder tree with slots), the semantics of each price delta (zero for covered variants, positive for upgrades), and the distinction from the sibling endpoint. The description stops short of explicitly stating read-only status, error behavior, or pagination, but for a data-retrieval tool the return-value semantics are the core behavioral context and they are thoroughly covered.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose and return semantics, sibling differentiation, and parameter provenance. The only flaw is a mild redundancy — the first sentence ('Get one Pizza Hut deal/combo's full choice-builder tree') restates the opening of the second sentence ('Returns one deal/combo's full choice-builder tree'). Otherwise information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly (slots, variants, price deltas with examples). With no annotations, the description must convey the tool's safety profile, which it implies strongly through 'Get/Returns' framing but never states explicitly. It also lacks error-case guidance. Still, for a read-style lookup tool with simple parameters, the essential context an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including bundle_code's provenance from /pizzahut/menu and store_number's provenance from /pizzahut/stores. The description reinforces bundle_code's origin and implies channel affects pricing deltas, but it adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 a specific verb+resource pair ('Get one Pizza Hut deal/combo's full choice-builder tree') and then specifies exactly what that means: every named slot, every product variant, and the price delta for each. It explicitly contrasts itself with /pizzahut/modifiers, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative endpoint (/pizzahut/modifiers) and gives the selection condition: modifiers customizes toppings/sauces on a single product variant, while this tool swaps whole product variants in a multi-item combo. It also states where bundle_code comes from (/pizzahut/menu's code field on type=bundle items), which is a concrete prerequisite for correct invocation.

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