iFood merchant info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by noting this is an unofficial GraphQL endpoint, which signals potential instability or lack of guarantees, but it does not disclose further behaviors like authentication, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler. Every phrase adds information: the data fields, the unofficial nature, and the read-only safety signal.

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?

Despite annotations covering the safety profile, the description is thin for a tool with three parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema. It does not explain what privacy_mode values mean, how response_format affects output, or what the return structure looks like. An agent would be guessing about key parameter behavior.

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 parameter meaning, but it does not explain merchant_id format, the privacy_mode enum values (summary/structured/raw), or response_format behavior. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the critical privacy_mode semantics are left entirely unspecified.

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 identifies the tool's subject (merchant info) and key data fields (fees, hours, rating), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like ifood_merchant_payment_methods. It lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve', but 'info' combined with the title makes the purpose clear enough.

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 the tool is for retrieving merchant fees, hours, and rating, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative merchant-related tools. It does not state exclusions or name sibling tools, so usage context is only implied.

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