iFood order receipt

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that by disclosing the /receipt URL is broken and that data comes from the live order payload, which implies the result may reflect current state rather than a stored receipt.

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 extremely concise, with every segment earning its place: the 404 context explains the need for the workaround, 'reads the live order payload' states the function, and 'read-only' reinforces safety. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is thin on details about what the receipt payload contains or how privacy_mode and response_format alter the result. Annotations and enum names provide some safety and parameter clues, but an agent still lacks enough context to fully anticipate output variations.

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 does not explain any parameter beyond implying order_id through the payload context. The enum values for privacy_mode and response_format are self-describing to some degree, but the description does not clarify their behavioral impact, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it reads the live order payload to obtain a receipt, with the context that a dedicated /receipt URL 404s. The verb 'reads' and the resource 'live order payload' are specific, and the title clarifies this is about order receipts. This distinguishes it from related order tools like ifood_get_order and ifood_get_order_invoice.

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 description implies usage by explaining that the dedicated /receipt URL is unavailable, so this tool reads the live order payload instead. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ifood_get_order_invoice or ifood_get_order, nor does it mention conditions where it should not be used.

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