iFood connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds minor context by noting token presence and that mutations are off by default, but it remains vague about actual runtime behavior.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the telegraphic fragments like 'Local doctor' and 'unofficial consumer surface' are jargon-heavy and sacrifice clarity for brevity.

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 one-parameter status check, the call shape is simple, but there is no output schema and the description never explicitly explains what the response contains. The token/mutation clues help, but the description is not fully actionable on its own.

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 sole parameter, response_format, has a 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the tool description. While the enum and default make it reasonably self-explanatory, the description provides no compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 labels the tool a 'Local doctor' and mentions 'token present,' which suggests a connection/token diagnostic, but it never directly states what the tool does, e.g., 'returns current connection status.' The cryptic phrasing does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like ifood_capabilities or ifood_privacy_audit.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of a sibling or how the result should influence subsequent calls. 'Local doctor' implies a health check, but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are named.

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