toast_resolve_restaurant

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: GUID-bearing links resolve locally with no network call, shortUrl slugs trigger a Toast lookup, and unknown slugs return guid: null plus a next step. The one omission is any hint about lookup latency/failure modes beyond the null case.

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?

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, resolution mechanics, and the failure return. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no redundant restatement of the name or 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing both the success return (a GUID for toast_get_menu) and the failure return (guid: null with a next step). Combined with the single-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 100% and the single parameter is already documented, so the baseline is met; the description goes further by decomposing 'reference' into concrete accepted shapes (r-<guid> links, ?guid= params, bare GUIDs, order.toasttab.com shortUrls) and their differing resolution behavior.

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 (resolve) and precise resource (restaurant GUID), enumerates the input forms it accepts, and explicitly names the downstream consumer toast_get_menu. It is trivially distinguishable from every sibling, which are menu/order/loyalty operations.

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?

Clearly frames this as the prerequisite step to toast_get_menu and explains the network vs no-network resolution paths. It does not, however, tell the agent what to do when it has no link/GUID at all (e.g., use toast_find_restaurants), leaving the main alternative unstated.

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