Get Toast API coverage

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

The annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a behavioral nuance by clarifying that it distinguishes implemented read coverage from catalog-only APIs, implying that some API families are not yet implemented and may require further access or validation. This goes slightly beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, focused sentence that conveys the tool's exact purpose without any filler. It is well-structured, front-loading the core action and then providing the useful distinction. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.

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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It explains that it lists all API families and distinguishes two categories. It does not specify the exact output format or whether pagination is involved, but given the intended purpose as a coverage overview, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's capability.

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 has no parameters, and the schema reflects this with an empty properties object. There is no parameter information to explain, so the description does not need to add meaning. The description still provides context about the tool's output, but since there are no parameters, this dimension is trivially satisfied.

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's function: it lists every current Toast-hosted public API family and distinguishes implemented read coverage from catalog-only APIs. The verb 'Lists' and the specific resource 'API family' make the purpose unambiguous, and the distinction between read coverage and catalog-only APIs adds useful precision.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it is for getting an overview of API coverage, it does not mention any sibling tools or conditions under which this tool is preferred. The lack of comparative usage guidance leaves the agent to infer appropriateness from the tool name and description alone.

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