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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by explaining why a mutation-sounding name ('86') is actually non-mutating and what the realistic next step is. It does not describe the shape of the returned guide (prose vs. structured steps) or whether it asks the user for menu/item details, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the 'returns instructions, opens nothing' caveat before the handoff to browser tools. The dated API note is slightly dense but is the justification for the browser path, so it 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only guide tool, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns, that it changes nothing, and how to act on the result. The only shortfall is that it never says the agent should supply the item/menu context in the request, which an agent must infer.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The guide-style design is consistent with the empty schema.

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 names a specific operation (86 a menu item) and a specific system (the user's own Toast account), and immediately clarifies that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by explicitly handing off execution to them.

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 states when to use this tool (to learn how to 86 an item in Toast), what it does not do (open or change anything itself), and which alternatives to use to carry it out (cotlet_browser_* tools against the Toast Cloud Browser). It also pre-empts the obvious alternative route by noting the official Toast API is read-only for restaurants, so the browser path is the only option.

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