toast_get_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only promises 'detailed information' without revealing response contents, whether restaurantGuid can affect scope, error behavior, or any other operational constraints. An agent cannot predict much beyond the basic read operation.

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 efficient sentence with no filler and the action/resource is front-loaded. It is concise, though the minimalism contributes to the broader incompleteness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and empty parameter descriptions, the definition needed to explain the response shape, parameter semantics, and relationship to sibling tools. It provides none of that, leaving an agent with only a high-level purpose statement.

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 property descriptions are empty, so the description must compensate. It adds only the vague context that a check belongs to an order and fails to explain checkGuid's format or the role of the optional restaurantGuid.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('check'), and relevant scoping ('within an order'), so the primary purpose is easy to grasp. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like toast_get_check_payments, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related tools such as toast_get_order, toast_get_check_payments, or toast_get_payment_summary. The phrase 'specific check' implies targeted retrieval, but the description provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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