toast_get_cash_drawer_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the output summarizes paid-in, paid-out, and net amounts, which goes beyond the tool name. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, period/date-range handling, whether the summary is for one drawer only, or any response format details.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core purpose and key result fields are front-loaded. It earns high marks for brevity, though the brevity contributes to the lack of parameter and usage guidance.

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?

The tool has no output schema and empty parameter descriptions, so the description is the only source of semantic information. It gives the gist but is not enough for correct invocation: an agent does not know what drawerGuid means, when restaurantGuid is needed, or what shape the summary takes. This is a clear completeness gap.

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 both parameter descriptions are empty. The tool description does not explain drawerGuid or restaurantGuid at all, despite restaurantGuid being optional and potentially important for scoping. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 resource ('summary of cash drawer activity') and clarifies the exact contents ('paid in, paid out, net'). This distinguishes it from siblings like toast_get_cash_drawer and toast_list_cash_drawers, which clearly address different concerns.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus toast_get_cash_drawer, toast_list_cash_entries, or toast_get_payment_summary. No context, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria are given, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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