toast_list_orders

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. It does add that results are paginated, which is useful, but it does not describe response shape, ordering, default date behavior, or the apparent discrepancy that 'status' filtering is mentioned but not supported in the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no filler, though the inaccurate 'status' mention detracts from otherwise efficient wording.

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 simple list endpoint with fully documented optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource, filters, and pagination. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and overlapping sibling tools, it leaves notable gaps around response contents, pagination semantics, and when to choose a sibling instead.

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 documents all six parameters with formats and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no real semantics beyond repeating filter categories, and its mention of 'status' is actively misleading because no such parameter exists in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List orders') and mentions key filtering capabilities. However, it mentions 'status' as a filter even though no status parameter exists in the schema, and it does not differentiate from the overlapping sibling toast_get_orders_by_business_date.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like toast_get_order, toast_get_orders_by_business_date, or toast_search_orders_by_customer. The agent is left to infer the appropriate choice from the name and schema alone.

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