iFood merchant info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral caveats beyond that: the API is unofficial GraphQL (reliability risk) and it may be blocked by WAF from datacenter IPs (an expected failure mode). This is valuable context an agent can act on when the call fails.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: content summary first, then safety profile, then failure mode. Every sentence earns its place; only 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations, and it costs a single word.

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, the description covers what data is returned and a known failure mode, while annotations cover safety. Gaps remain: no explanation of what the three privacy_mode values return, no guidance on merchant_id format, and no return-shape description despite the absence of an output schema.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, yet it mentions none of the three. The enums on privacy_mode (summary/structured/raw) and response_format (markdown/json) are reasonably self-explanatory, and merchant_id is obvious from its name, which prevents a 1, but the description itself adds zero parameter semantics.

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 the resource (iFood merchant info) and the specific data it returns — fees, hours, rating — which makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishable from the many order/cart/payment siblings. However, the verb is implied ('provides/fetches') rather than explicit, so it doesn't quite earn a 5.

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 listed data points (fees, hours, rating) imply the trigger condition for using this tool, but the description never states when to use it or names alternatives. With 32 siblings, including the closely named ifood_merchant_payment_methods, explicit routing guidance would materially help an agent choose correctly.

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