toast_list_shifts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only states the operation. It does not explain what happens when called with zero parameters (all parameters are optional), how businessDate interacts with startDate/endDate, whether results are filtered by the GUID parameters, or anything about output shape or ordering.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity could have been traded for one clause naming a sibling alternative.

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 5 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling family, this description leaves meaningful gaps: the two empty-description GUID parameters, the precedence/interaction among date filters, and selection guidance among shift-related siblings. An agent cannot reliably configure a correct call from this description alone.

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 60%, and the description's 'date range' phrasing does add interpretive value to startDate and endDate. However, employeeGuid and restaurantGuid have empty schema descriptions and the description does not clarify their filtering role, nor does it explain the relationship between businessDate and the start/end date range.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('shifts') with a scoping constraint ('for a specific date range'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like toast_get_shift or toast_get_active_shifts, so an agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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 date-range phrasing implies the tool is for retrieving shifts within a date window, which provides some usage context. But no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over related siblings (toast_get_shift, toast_get_active_shifts, toast_list_time_entries), and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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