Get iFood cart

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description's 'Read-only' merely repeats that. It adds no additional behavioral context such as what happens for missing carts, authentication needs, or response 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, which is good for quick comprehension. The 'Read-only' fragment is somewhat redundant with the annotations, so it does not fully earn its place, but overall the definition is appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no guidance on privacy_mode or response_format, this definition is incomplete for an agent trying to call the tool correctly. The read-only safety profile is covered by annotations, but invocation-specific semantics are missing.

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 needed to explain parameters, but it does not mention cart_id, privacy_mode, or response_format. The property names and enums give minimal clues, but the agent is left guessing what each privacy_mode value means and how response_format affects output.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('a cart on cw-marketplace'), which clearly identifies the operation. The read-only framing distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like ifood_create_cart, ifood_set_delivery_method, and ifood_checkout.

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 read-only indication implies this tool is for inspecting a cart rather than modifying or creating one, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The usage context is clear but left mostly to inference.

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