toast_get_top_customers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that the tool ranks customers by either order frequency or total spent, which is meaningful. However, it does not explain defaults, output shape, pagination, restaurant scoping, or any other runtime behavior beyond the headline.

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 tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the key differentiator without wasting words.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented optional parameters, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to call it confidently. It omits valid sortBy values, whether restaurantGuid is required, limit format/defaults, and what the response looks like.

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 all parameters have empty descriptions, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'order frequency or total spent' hints that sortBy may accept one of those values, and 'top' implies limit behavior, but limit, sortBy, and restaurantGuid are not explicitly defined. This leaves a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 identifies a specific operation ('Get top customers') with a distinguishing criterion ('by order frequency or total spent'). This separates it from sibling tools like toast_search_customers or toast_get_customer_order_history, which serve different lookup and history purposes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative customer-related tools such as toast_search_customers, toast_get_customer_order_history, or toast_get_customer_loyalty_status. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions; the usage context is only weakly implied.

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