toast_list_service_areas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. 'List all' communicates a read-only, comprehensive retrieval operation, but it does not disclose pagination, permission requirements, edge cases, or the meaning of the optional restaurantGuid. The behavior is minimally transparent but not fully specified.

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. The parenthetical definition is concise and contributes meaning. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented optional parameter. The description names the resource clearly but fails to explain how to provide restaurant context or what the response looks like. An agent would still have to guess about important invocation details.

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 one parameter, restaurantGuid, with an empty description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's phrase 'at a restaurant' hints at restaurant context but does not explicitly explain how restaurantGuid affects the result or whether it is needed. The parameter is effectively undocumented.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'service areas', and the parenthetical '(dining sections)' adds helpful disambiguation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like toast_list_tables or toast_list_dining_options, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 use this tool versus related list tools such as toast_list_tables, toast_list_dining_options, or toast_list_revenue_centers. The phrase 'at a restaurant' is generic context rather than actionable usage guidance.

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