toast_get_payment_summary

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full transparency burden. It conveys a read-only aggregation operation through 'Get... totals', but it does not describe authorization needs, response structure, pagination, or whether the summary can be scoped by restaurant.

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 contains the verb, resource, scope, and expected output with no filler. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or title.

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?

The required businessDate parameter is sufficiently covered by the schema, and the parenthetical clarifies the return concept, but restaurantGuid is left entirely unexplained. Without an output schema or any guidance on restaurant scoping, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably decide whether the optional parameter is needed.

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 schema documents businessDate, and the description reinforces its role, but restaurantGuid has an empty description in the schema and is not mentioned in the description. With one of two parameters completely unexplained, the description fails to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 names a concrete resource ('payment summary') with a clear scope ('for a business date') and output shape ('totals by payment type'). It is distinguishable from payment retrieval tools like toast_get_payment, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate any sibling.

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 business date' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this report versus sibling reports such as toast_get_payment_type_report or toast_get_sales_summary. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool names are provided.

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