toast_search_orders_by_customer

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 says 'Search orders.' It does not mention matching semantics, date-range behavior, pagination, whether at least one of phone/email is needed, or what kind of results are returned.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loads the core operation and filter criteria. It contains no filler, though it is so terse that it sacrifices informative detail.

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 five optional parameters, no annotations, empty schema descriptions, and no output schema, this one-line description is inadequate. The agent lacks enough context to know which parameters to supply, whether any are required, and what response shape to 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?

All five parameters have empty schema descriptions, and the tool description only clarifies phone and email. The startDate, endDate, and restaurantGuid parameters are entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot tell how or why to use them.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('Search orders') and names the key search criteria ('by customer phone or email'). This makes the tool's basic purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from related order-history or customer-search tools.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent has a customer phone or email, but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better alternative. No exclusions or comparison to toast_get_customer_order_history or toast_search_customers are given.

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