iFood benefits

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds one useful behavioral boundary beyond annotations — 'Does not apply a coupon' — which prevents misuse. However, it does not disclose output behavior, privacy_mode effects, or what data is returned, so the added context is modest.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the read-only constraint and coupon exclusion are front-loaded. It is efficiently concise, though slightly terse to the point of omitting a main verb describing the action.

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 tool with two optional enum parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: annotations cover safety, and the exclusion clarifies scope. Still, it lacks any hint about what the tool returns or how the parameters alter behavior, leaving an agent to guess at the tool's actual output.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the parameters, but it mentions neither privacy_mode nor response_format. The enum values are partially self-explanatory ('summary'/'structured'/'raw' and 'markdown'/'json'), yet the meaning of privacy_mode in particular is left entirely to inference.

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 the resource ('Wallet benefits and coupons') and adds two clarifying constraints: it is read-only and does not apply a coupon. This is more than a tautology and differentiates it from any coupon-application behavior, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'view' stating exactly what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for viewing wallet benefits and coupons. The explicit 'Does not apply a coupon' provides a when-not condition, but no alternative sibling is named and no positive trigger condition is stated, so routing guidance is limited.

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