toast_get_order_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by naming the status values (kitchen prep, ready, completed), but it does not disclose behavior for invalid order IDs, whether restaurantGuid is required in practice, or whether the status is returned in real time.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, then adds clarifying examples, which is ideal for this simple tool.

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 output schema, no annotations, and empty parameter descriptions, the definition is too sparse to fully guide invocation. It does not explain what orderGuid identifies, when restaurantGuid is needed, or what exact response to expect, leaving the agent to infer critical details.

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 provides no information about orderGuid or restaurantGuid. The required identifier is not explained in any way, so the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the empty schema fields.

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 ('fulfillment status of an order'), and the parenthetical statuses clarify exactly what kind of status is returned. This clearly distinguishes it from generic order tools like toast_get_order or toast_get_online_ordering_status.

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?

The description states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it point to toast_get_order for full order details or toast_get_online_ordering_status for a different status concept.

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