List iFood orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the tool returns past orders using the v4 API, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default size, or how privacy_mode/response_format affect output.

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 short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it is a fragment that omits a verb and any parameter context, so its structure doesn't support effective use.

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?

This is a list operation with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, yet the description only provides a two-word scope. Critical details—pagination defaults, enum semantics, response shape—are absent, leaving the agent without enough to call it correctly.

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 says nothing about page, size, privacy_mode, or response_format. The agent must infer meanings from parameter names and enumeration values alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 gives the verb+resource ('List iFood orders'), and the description clarifies scope ('Past orders (v4)') and safety ('Read-only'). This distinguishes it from the sibling ifood_get_order, which targets a single order, though it never names that 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., ifood_get_order for a single order, ifood_search for search). The only contextual cue is 'Past orders' and 'Read-only,' which implies safe listing but doesn't state preconditions or alternatives.

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