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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds content scope (profile, roles, permissions) but does not disclose additional behavioral nuances like auth requirements or response structure. This meets the baseline for annotation-supplemented tools.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the key information (account/store data) and provides useful specifics in parentheses. No wasted words.

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 read-only tool with no parameters or output schema, the description gives enough context to understand the tool's purpose and data domain. It lists the key content areas, but could be slightly more explicit about what is not included, though this is not a critical gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter explanations are needed. The description makes no claims about parameters, and the high schema coverage (vacuously 100%) means there is no additional semantic load on the description.

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 tool returns account/store data from the iFood Partner Portal, listing specific content types (profile, roles, permissions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other domains like menu, orders, or financials.

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 provides clear context about when to use the tool (when needing account/store data), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling list is available, but no direct comparison is given.

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