toast_list_accessible_restaurants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates the credential-scoped access behavior and the read-only listing nature, but it does not disclose pagination, response shape, or error behavior. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is acceptable but not detailed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes operational meaning: 'List all', 'restaurants', and 'accessible with current API credentials'.

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 zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed and under what access scope. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the response shape or whether all restaurants are returned in a single call, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter information.

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 ('List all') and a clear resource ('restaurants accessible with current API credentials'), defining both the operation and its scope. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like toast_get_restaurant_info, which targets a single restaurant's details rather than enumerating all accessible restaurants.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when the agent needs to enumerate all restaurants the current credentials can access. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention exclusions, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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