toast_get_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the real operational constraint that a toast.app browser sign-in via ContextMint Bridge is required. It also details what comes back (payments, discounts, gift card, delivery) which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contents, then input provenance, then the auth prerequisite — a sensible order. The field enumeration is long but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, describing the returned receipt fields is necessary and done thoroughly, and the auth prerequisite is stated. The only gap is guidance on choosing the `view` mode, which is a minor omission given the schema documents it.

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 coverage is only 33%, and the description compensates for the two required GUIDs by stating their origin. However, it says nothing about the `view` parameter (compact vs full), leaving the schema's own enum text to carry that meaning alone.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('one of your past Toast orders as a receipt') and enumerates the concrete contents (items, modifiers, tax, tip, payments, delivery address). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling toast_list_orders, which supplies the IDs this tool consumes.

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?

Explicitly says where the required inputs come from ('Takes the restaurant and order GUIDs from toast_list_orders'), which routes the agent correctly. It does not state any when-not condition, but for a single-record fetch there is little alternative ambiguity.

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