toast_get_cash_drawer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' signals a read-only retrieval, which is useful, but the description does not disclose response format, error behavior, optionality of restaurantGuid, or any other runtime traits an agent would need to predict the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part contributes: 'get' states the action, 'detailed information' sets expectations, and 'specific cash drawer' distinguishes this from list operations.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and empty property descriptions, this description is too thin. The agent can infer a basic get-by-GUID call, but it cannot know what 'detailed information' includes, why restaurantGuid is optional, or what a successful or failed response looks like.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. 'Specific cash drawer' only restates that an identifier is involved; it does not explain drawerGuid or the optional restaurantGuid, leaving the agent without the information needed to construct a correct call.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('a specific cash drawer'). The word 'specific' differentiates it from list-style sibling tools, but it does not distinguish it from toast_get_cash_drawer_summary, so there is some ambiguity about the difference between 'detailed information' and 'summary'.

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 'a specific cash drawer' implies it should be used when the agent already has a drawer identifier and needs details, rather than when listing drawers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no clarification of when toast_get_cash_drawer_summary or toast_list_cash_entries would be more appropriate.

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