toast_get_employee_time_entries

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it returns time entries with clock in/out data; it does not mention whether filtering by dates is required, how entries are ordered, what the response contains, or any restrictions or side effects.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is appropriately short for a simple read operation, though it sacrifices useful detail that could be added without becoming verbose.

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 five parameters, only one required, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It leaves the agent uncertain about date filtering, the relationship between businessDate and startDate/endDate, and whether restaurantGuid is needed in multi-restaurant contexts.

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 coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It adds minimal meaning by implying employeeGuid is the primary lookup key, but it gives no semantics for startDate, endDate, businessDate, or restaurantGuid, nor any guidance about required date formats or combinations.

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 and resource—'Get time entries (clock in/out) for an employee'—and clearly identifies the entity being fetched. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the 'for an employee' scope distinguishes it from broader tools like toast_list_time_entries.

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 about when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as toast_list_time_entries or toast_get_employee_hours. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual signals explaining how this differs from those sibling tools.

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