toast_get_employee_hours

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly signals a non-mutating aggregation operation, but it does not disclose details like date inclusiveness, timezone handling, rounding, or behavior when no time entries exist.

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 no filler. It communicates the core operation efficiently without redundant wording.

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 empty parameter descriptions, the one-line description is too thin. The date format, the optional restaurantGuid semantics, and the return shape are all missing, making reliable invocation harder.

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%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'employee' to employeeGuid and 'date range' to startDate/endDate, but it leaves restaurantGuid entirely unexplained and provides no date format or value constraints.

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') and resource ('total hours worked by an employee for a date range'). This is concrete and distinguishes it from the sibling toast_get_employee_time_entries, which returns raw time entries rather than a total.

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 on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as toast_get_employee_time_entries or toast_get_labor_report. It does not state when-not-to-use or mention any exclusions.

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