List iFood addresses

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that street, phone, and email are redacted by default. This is a meaningful privacy-related behavior that the annotations do not express.

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: two short clauses that immediately state the resource and the key redaction behavior. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 all optional parameters, the description is minimally viable, especially given rich annotations. However, it does not describe the meaning of privacy_mode values, the response_format options, or any return structure, and there is no output schema. An agent could call the tool with defaults, but it cannot make informed decisions about the available modes.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, but it does not clearly explain privacy_mode or response_format. The phrase 'redacted by default' hints at privacy_mode, but it never states how 'summary', 'structured', or 'raw' affect output, nor what response_format controls. The enum names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds almost no direct parameter value.

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 title and description together make the resource clear: saved delivery addresses. The phrase 'Saved delivery addresses' identifies the specific resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like order, payment, or contact methods. However, the description is a noun phrase rather than a full statement with a verb, relying on the title to convey the 'list' action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ifood_list_orders, ifood_contact_methods, or ifood_privacy_audit. There are no explicit when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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