toast_get_labor_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a date-scoped read of a summary report, but it does not explain restaurantGuid behavior, permissions needed, whether hours/costs are included, or what the response contains. This is minimal 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, focused sentence with no filler, and the core scope (labor summary report) is front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter depth.

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 simple 2-parameter report tool this is close to workable, but the optional restaurantGuid is left undocumented and there is no output schema to explain the report contents. An agent would not know whether restaurantGuid is needed in a multi-restaurant setup or what fields the report returns.

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?

The description adds little beyond the schema: 'for a business date' mostly restates businessDate, and the restaurantGuid parameter has an empty schema description and no mention in the tool description. At 50% schema coverage, the description needed to clarify the optional parameter's role and does not.

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 resource ('labor summary report') and scopes it to a business date. This distinguishes it from discount, void, and sales reports among siblings, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 related siblings such as toast_get_employee_hours or toast_get_sales_summary. The only implied usage is that a business date is required, but no exclusions or alternative-selection conditions are given.

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