Search a Toast menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the notion of 'resolved' menus, which clarifies the data source, but does not disclose pagination behavior or result ordering. Given annotation coverage, the description provides modest additional value, warranting a 3.

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 that is concise, informative, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It does not describe search semantics (e.g., fuzzy matching, case sensitivity) but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only minor omission is explicit handling of pagination, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Overall, adequate for successful invocation.

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 only 33% (only restaurantGuid is described). The description compensates partially by clarifying that the query searches across item names, groups, menus, PLUs, and SKUs, which gives meaning to the 'query' parameter. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or any search behavior beyond scope, leaving a gap for that parameter. A 3 reflects partial compensation.

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 states a specific verb ('Searches') and a precise resource ('resolved Toast Menus V2 item names, groups, menus, PLUs, and SKUs'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools that operate on orders, inventory, locations, or API coverage. It leaves no ambiguity about what is being searched.

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 implies the tool is for searching menu-related data but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Since no sibling is a direct menu-search tool, the context is fairly obvious, but explicit guidance on use cases or limitations is absent.

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