toast_get_86d_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does convey a read-only list operation and a live status ('currently marked'). It omits details like pagination, response shape, and auth context, but the basic behavior is transparent enough for a simple fetch tool.

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?

A single focused sentence with no filler; the parenthetical defines the domain term '86'd' without expanding length. Every word contributes.

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 and no annotations, the one-line description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether 'all items' is scoped by restaurantGuid, what fields will be returned, or whether results are paginated, leaving an agent with an under-specified 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?

There is one optional parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions restaurantGuid or how omitting it changes the result. The description adds no meaning beyond the property name, so it fails to compensate for the empty schema description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get all items currently marked as out of stock (86'd)'. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from low-stock/stock-item siblings through the 86'd condition, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'currently marked as out of stock' implies this tool should be used when the current set of 86'd items is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over toast_list_low_stock_items or toast_get_stock_item, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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