iFood order invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context by revealing that dedicated invoice endpoints are broken and that this tool reads the live order payload, but it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral nuance.

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 short and has no fluff, but it errs toward under-specification. The phrase 'Read-only' repeats what the annotations already state, and the first sentence about 404 URLs is cryptic rather than clarifying. Every sentence has a point, but the overall terseness reduces usefulness.

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 three parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and a large sibling list, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine what the tool actually returns, how the parameters control the result, or how this tool differs from ifood_get_order and ifood_get_order_receipt. The description answers neither the 'why' nor the 'how' of 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 provides no meaning for order_id, privacy_mode, or response_format. It does not mention how to extract the invoice from the order payload or how the privacy and format parameters affect the result, leaving the agent without any grounding for correct parameter use.

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 has a verb ('Reads') and a resource ('live order payload'), but it never explicitly says it returns an invoice, which is the tool's declared purpose from its name and title. It reads like a workaround note rather than a clear function statement, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from ifood_get_order, which likely also reads the live order payload.

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 line 'Dedicated /invoice /nfe URLs 404' hints that this tool exists because the direct invoice endpoints fail, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ifood_get_order or ifood_get_order_receipt. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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