toast_get_modifier_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only paraphrases the tool name with examples and does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether a restaurant scope is needed, or what kind of response to expect.

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 compact sentence with no filler words. The examples 'toppings, sides' add useful context without bloating the text, though the overall brevity leaves other dimensions under-served.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about what 'details' are returned and how the parameters affect the call. It does not address the optional restaurantGuid parameter or the shape of the result, so an agent has insufficient context for reliable 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 0% and both parameter descriptions in the schema are empty. The description adds no meaning to modifierGroupGuid or restaurantGuid, so it fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 details') and resource ('modifier group') with clarifying examples ('toppings, sides'), making the tool's target clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like toast_list_menu_groups or toast_get_menu_item, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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. The description does not mention how modifier groups differ from menu groups, menu items, or other related entities, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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