toast_get_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates that the tool gets information. It does not mention what happens when the table is not found, how restaurantGuid affects behavior, what the response looks like, or any access requirements.

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 very brief and front-loaded, but 'information about' is filler that mostly restates the tool name. It is under-specified rather than a model of concise useful structure.

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, empty parameter descriptions, and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves the agent to infer input semantics, response shape, and usage context. The self-explanatory parameter names and the existence of toast_list_tables help only slightly.

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 tool description adds no meaning to tableGuid or restaurantGuid, so an agent receives no information about how to fill these parameters or what each represents.

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 has a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a specific table'), which identifies it as a single-entity retrieval tool. It does not explicitly differentiate it from toast_list_tables or clarify whether 'table' means a dining table or a data table, so it falls short of a 5.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toast_list_tables. The intended usage is only weakly implied by the word 'specific' and the sibling tool names, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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