iFood order ETA

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: the dedicated /eta URL returns 404, so the tool reads the live order payload instead. This goes beyond the structured hints and helps set expectations.

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 contains no filler. Each fragment earns its place, though the first fragment is cryptic. It is appropriately sized but would benefit from a clearer statement of what the tool actually returns.

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 strong annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any explanation of parameters, output, or how this differs from closely related order tools, leaving an agent to infer some important context.

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, but it mentions no parameters at all. Parameter names and enums are somewhat self-explanatory, but privacy_mode's summary/structured/raw values and response_format's behavior are left unexplained.

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 states a clear action: it reads the live order payload for ETA purposes, and the title confirms the resource (order ETA). It is not a tautology and hints at being distinct from order-detail or tracking tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 siblings like ifood_track_order or ifood_get_order. The description implies read-only usage but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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