toast_get_void_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Get report' and does not disclose return format, date/time handling, scoping, or whether voided items are aggregated or itemized. It does indicate a read-only retrieval, but that is minimal and inferential.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the report topic. However, it is so sparse that it sacrifices necessary context, making it under-specified rather than genuinely structured.

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 report endpoint with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete: it omits the meaning of the required businessDate, the optional restaurantGuid, and what the returned report contains. The high-level topic ('voided orders and items') is useful but not sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 does not mention either parameter. businessDate's numeric format and requiredness are unexplained, and restaurantGuid's optional targeting role is absent.

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 states a specific action—'Get report'—and a precise resource, 'voided orders and items,' which distinguishes it from sibling report tools like toast_get_discount_report or toast_get_item_sales_report. It is not a tautology because it expands on the tool name by identifying the report subject. It lacks the business-date scope in prose, but the required parameter makes that inferable.

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 choose this tool over siblings; no alternative is named and no condition or exclusion is stated. The only implicit signal is the report topic, which is insufficient to route an agent among many reporting tools.

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