toast_get_customer_order_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the core operation and does not explain how the customer is selected, what happens when no identifier parameters are supplied, or what the returned history contains. It is not misleading, but it is far too thin to be transparent.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is concise and front-loaded, though its brevity comes at the cost of explanatory depth.

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 four optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and a sibling with overlapping functionality, this description is not complete enough. It fails to disambiguate from toast_search_orders_by_customer, specify required inputs, or describe the returned payload, so an agent lacks critical selection and invocation context.

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?

Only 25% of parameters have schema descriptions, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'for a specific customer' hints that email/phone are identifiers, but restaurantGuid and the relationship between the parameters remain unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the operation ('Get'), the resource ('order history'), and the scope ('for a specific customer'). It is not a tautology and an agent can understand the basic purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'toast_search_orders_by_customer', which could plausibly perform a similar lookup.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like toast_search_orders_by_customer or toast_list_orders. There are no exclusions, conditions, or hints about which existing customer identifier is expected, leaving the agent to guess.

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