toast_get_items_by_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the high-level purpose ('get all menu items') and gives no information about pagination, response shape, required authentication, potential size of results, or side effects. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it adds little beyond the purpose itself.

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 is appropriately concise for a simple list endpoint, though it could earn a 5 by also including a quick usage or sibling-contrast note.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, lack of annotations, and a mysteriously empty restaurantGuid description, the tool is under-specified. An agent cannot confidently know whether restaurantGuid is required in certain restaurant contexts or what the returned item list contains. The description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 only 50%: groupGuid has a minimal 'Menu group GUID' description, and restaurantGuid has no description at all. The tool description mentions 'category/group' but does not clarify what restaurantGuid is for, when it is needed, or how to obtain either GUID. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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'), resource ('all menu items'), and scope ('specific category/group'), making the tool's core function clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like toast_search_menu_items or toast_list_menu_groups, so it misses the differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toast_search_menu_items, toast_get_menu_item, or toast_list_menu_groups. The one-line description implies a use case (retrieve items by category), but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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