toast_list_cash_drawers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether authentication is required, how results are paginated or returned, or how the optional restaurantGuid affects the request. It is not misleading, but it is minimally transparent.

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: verb, resource, and scope are all present. For a simple list operation this is an appropriate size and 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool definition is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It lacks restaurantGuid semantics, guidance among related cash-drawer tools, and any note about response shape or behavior beyond the literal listing. For a simple tool it is adequate in isolation, but not complete in context.

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 already explains businessDate as YYYYMMDD, and the description reinforces that a business date is the scoping concept for the listing. However, restaurantGuid has an empty schema description and is never mentioned in the description, leaving one of two parameters effectively undocumented. Some meaning is added for the required parameter, but the overall parameter coverage is incomplete.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cash drawers') with a temporal scope ('for a business date'), so the core action is clear. It is reasonably distinguishable from toast_get_cash_drawer because it says 'all', but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related list tools such as toast_list_cash_entries or toast_list_cash_deposits.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling cash-drawer tools such as toast_get_cash_drawer, toast_get_cash_drawer_summary, toast_list_cash_entries, or toast_list_cash_deposits. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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