toast_get_menu_item

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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not reveal response shape, error behavior, authentication requirements, or how the optional restaurantGuid affects behavior.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, though it errs more toward vagueness than thoughtful brevity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It does not explain return values, the meaning of parameters, or what 'detailed information' includes.

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 parameter explanations. itemGuid and restaurantGuid are left entirely to name inference, with no guidance on the role or necessity of restaurantGuid.

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 states the verb 'Get', the resource 'menu item', and the scope 'specific', making it evident what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from list/search siblings in intent, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like toast_search_menu_items or toast_get_menu. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and vague description.

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