Search iFood

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing that datacenter IPs may trigger WAF blocking, which is non-obvious and operationally important. The 'Read-only' phrase reinforces the readOnlyHint, and the WAF caveat provides meaningful behavioral context. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 at roughly a dozen words, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase adds information. The WAF warning is a single short clause that earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The annotations cover the safety profile well, and the WAF warning adds a useful operational detail. However, with six parameters, no output schema, and no explicit sibling routing, the description leaves meaningful gaps around parameter behavior and when to use the tool. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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, but it only clarifies that `term` is the search query and `latitude`/`longitude` define the point. It leaves `size`, `privacy_mode`, and `response_format` unexplained, and those parameters are not self-evident beyond their enum values. The description provides partial semantic coverage at best.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('restaurants/items near a point'), giving agents a concrete sense of what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ifood_categories or ifood_merchant_info, but the 'near a point' scope is distinctive enough to avoid obvious confusion.

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 phrase 'near a point' implies this tool should be used for location-based restaurant or item searches, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools such as ifood_categories or ifood_home, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. Guidance is present but left to inference.

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