toast_list_employees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior; it communicates a read-only listing operation but does not mention pagination, default filtering, includeDeleted semantics, or response shape. This is adequate but thin, so it stays at a minimal viable level.

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. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in usage and parameter guidance.

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 an undocumented restaurantGuid parameter, this minimal one-liner is incomplete. It does not explain how restaurantGuid relates to 'at a restaurant', how includeDeleted should be formatted, or what response the agent should expect.

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 coverage is only 50%: includeDeleted has a short description while restaurantGuid has an empty description. The tool description adds no meaning for either parameter and does not compensate for the undocumented restaurantGuid, so an agent lacks necessary parameter semantics.

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 'List all employees at a restaurant' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (employees), so an agent knows what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings such as toast_search_employees or toast_get_employee, so it falls short of full distinction.

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 prefer this tool over the many employee-related siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a restaurantGuid. An agent is left to infer the intended use case from the tool name alone.

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