toast_get_discount_report

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

There are no annotations to communicate read-only status or side effects, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that a report is retrieved and does not clarify whether the report is aggregated, how it is filtered by date or restaurant, whether it includes line items or totals, or how much data might be returned.

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, filler-free sentence and is appropriately brief. However, it is so underspecified that the conciseness comes at the expense of useful content, so it earns only a moderate score.

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 output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description should compensate by explaining the required businessDate, the optional restaurantGuid, and the expected report shape. It does none of this, making the definition incomplete for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 meaning for either parameter. businessDate appears to be the required date filter and restaurantGuid appears to be an optional scoping parameter, but the tool definition does not explain what values they accept or how they affect the report.

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 identifies a specific report ('report on discounts applied') and uses a concrete verb ('Get'), making it distinguishable from related report tools like toast_get_void_report. However, it does not mention the date scope or what particular discount data is included, which leaves some ambiguity about the exact resource.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of other report tools such as toast_get_void_report, toast_get_sales_summary, or toast_get_payment_type_report. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing hints, so an agent must rely solely on the tool name and generic wording.

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