toast_search_menu_items

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. It states that matching is by name, SKU, or PLU, but does not disclose whether matches are partial or exact, case sensitivity, pagination/limits, or what a result item contains. The absence of any output schema makes this gap more significant.

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; every word earns its place. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, but as a concise statement of purpose it is effective.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It fails to specify the meaning of restaurantGuid, expected result shape, or matching behavior, leaving an agent without enough context to confidently interpret the search response or handle multi-restaurant use cases.

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 description largely repeats the schema's own description of the query parameter without adding new meaning. The optional restaurantGuid parameter has an empty schema description and receives no explanation in the description, so half of the parameters remain undocumented across both sources.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search menu items') and enumerates the search keys ('name, SKU, or PLU'), making the tool's scope immediately clear. This distinguishes it from the list/get menu-item siblings such as toast_list_menus and toast_get_menu_item, which operate by enumeration or known identifiers.

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 description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many menu-related siblings, such as toast_get_menu_item or toast_list_menus. The intended use is only implied by the word 'search'; there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions.

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