iFood search filters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the catalog is public and requires no auth ('200 without auth'), which complements the open-world annotation. It does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or output size, but given the annotation coverage this is acceptable.

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 one short sentence plus a read-only tag, with no filler or repetition beyond the annotation. It front-loads the essential 'Public filter catalog' information before the behavioral note. It earns a top score for economical structure.

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 two-parameter, optional-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers accessibility and read-only nature, but it does not describe what the returned filter catalog contains or how privacy_mode/response_format alter it. With no output schema, an agent has little grounding for interpreting results beyond enum names. The definition is adequate for tool selection but somewhat thin for correct invocation.

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%, and the description says nothing about privacy_mode or response_format; it leaves agents to infer meaning from the enum names (summary/structured/raw and markdown/json). The enums are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, nor does it explain how these modes affect the catalog output. This is a meaningful gap.

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 as a 'Public filter catalog' and marks it read-only, which tells an agent this tool exposes available search filters. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', and doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools such as ifood_categories or ifood_search, but the resource is specific enough to be recognizable.

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 statement 'Public filter catalog (200 without auth)' conveys that the tool is freely accessible without authentication, implying it should be used when an agent needs to inspect available filters. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like ifood_search or ifood_categories, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions. This is adequate context but relies on inference.

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