Get Toast inventory risks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a minor detail about live responses but does not significantly expand on side effects, data freshness, or other behavioral aspects. It is consistent with the annotations, so the score is moderate.

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 with no redundant or extraneous information. It is efficiently structured and immediately conveys the core purpose.

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 getter tool with comprehensive annotations and parameter schema, the description is largely complete. The note about typical response content provides useful context. It does not describe the output format or any filtering behavior, but these are not critical for understanding the tool's basic function.

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 descriptions for both parameters (status and restaurantGuid) are provided, covering 100% of the parameters. The description does not add further semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool reads Toast Stock API inventory, specifying the resource and action. It also notes the typical response content (OUT_OF_STOCK and QUANTITY items), which adds context. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though the names themselves provide some differentiation.

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. There is no mention of use cases, limitations, or comparisons to sibling tools. The note about live responses is implicit but not actionable guidance.

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