toast_list_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so the description's job is to add operational context — which it does: sort order (newest first), the pagination contract, and the browser-based auth requirement through ContextMint Bridge. It stops short of noting rate limits or behavior when the sign-in is absent/expired.

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 resource and ordering, then the return shape, then the two operational instructions. Every sentence carries information; the field enumeration is dense but justified since no output schema exists.

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, the description takes on the return-value burden and lists the fields returned plus their formats (ISO-8601 UTC, dollars, Toast-reported status). It also covers auth prerequisite, pagination, and the sibling alternative — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both page_size and view are already fully documented, and the description adds only the practical semantics of next_page_token (fetch older orders). That is a small but real gain over the schema, which merely says 'from a previous answer' — leaving the baseline plus a point of value.

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 and resource ('Your Toast order history, newest first') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (GUID, restaurant, timestamps, status, items, total). It explicitly contrasts with toast_get_order, so an agent can distinguish sibling scope without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition selecting it: 'Use toast_get_order for a full receipt.' It also states the paging procedure ('Pass next_page_token from the previous answer for older orders') and the prerequisite sign-in. Only true exclusions (e.g., filtering by restaurant or date) are unstated.

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