toast_get_orders_by_business_date

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic retrieval operation and the date format; it does not mention pagination, ordering, whether 'all orders' includes voids or discounts, what the response shape is, or how the optional restaurantGuid modifies 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, focused sentence with no wasted words and the key resource/verb at the front. It could have added more useful context about behavior or the optional parameter without becoming verbose, but as a concise purpose statement it is effective.

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 and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: it does not define what 'all orders' returns, whether results are paginated, what the optional restaurantGuid does, or how this tool relates to toast_list_orders. An agent would need additional information to invoke it confidently in a multi-restaurant context.

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%: businessDate is documented in the schema, but restaurantGuid has an empty description. The tool description merely repeats the YYYYMMDD format already present in the schema and does not add any meaning for the undocumented optional parameter, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 all orders' and the resource ('orders') filtered by a specific business date, so an agent can infer what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like toast_list_orders or toast_get_order, leaving ambiguity about when this date-specific endpoint is preferable.

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 phrase 'for a specific business date' gives a clear context for use, implying this tool is appropriate when date-based order retrieval is needed. But it offers no guidance on when not to use it, no alternatives, and no mention of how restaurantGuid might affect usage, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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