toast_get_delivery_settings

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 only restates a read action and gives example fields; it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, output shape, or what happens when restaurantGuid is omitted. The verb implies read-only but adds little beyond the tool name.

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 the verb and resource first, followed by parenthetical examples. It's efficient and free of filler, though 'etc.' is slightly vague. It earns a high score for conciseness even though other dimensions reveal missing content.

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 is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description still leaves critical gaps: it doesn't explain the restaurantGuid parameter, what the response contains, or how the tool behaves when called with no arguments. An agent can call it but can't fully anticipate the result.

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 doesn't mention restaurantGuid at all. With a single optional parameter, the description needed to clarify that the parameter selects the restaurant context, but it provides zero guidance, leaving the agent unable to determine how to populate the argument.

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, 'delivery configuration', with concrete examples like radius and minimum amount. It sufficiently identifies what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like toast_get_online_ordering_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about scoping, prerequisites, or typical use cases. An agent gets no help deciding whether this is the right tool among many toast_get_* siblings.

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