Find Toast orders

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by disclosing that results are privacy-minimized summaries rather than full orders and by capping the query window at 31 days, which is not inferable from annotations alone.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the return type and then stating the key constraints. Every phrase 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, this is functionally complete for a simple list query. It does not explicitly route to toast_get_order for full single-order details, but that gap is more about usage guidance than missing invocation information.

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 already documents startDate, endDate, restaurantGuid, and limit constraints, so the baseline is 3. The description supplements this by clarifying that startDate and endDate form a range and by adding a 31-day maximum window that is not present in the individual parameter descriptions.

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 result type (privacy-minimized order summaries) and constrains the query to an ISO 8601 time range of at most 31 days. This clearly communicates a batch summaries operation rather than a single-order fetch, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate siblings.

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 time-range constraint implies when to use this tool: when order summaries over a date window are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or to prefer a sibling like toast_get_order for full order details.

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