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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses cost ($0.002 USDC per successful call), the payment rails (x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), and that failed calls are not charged — exactly the billing and safety context an agent needs before invoking. It also clarifies the data source is the public restaurant page, implying no auth.

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 purpose and return contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, with pricing/payment as a clear second sentence. The return-value enumeration is long but each item is substantive; slight trimming would help.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the return-value list is partly redundant, but the description still adds deployment context (public page source, countries, billing) that structured fields do not carry. Complete enough for an agent to call 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 100%, so country codes, the storeId format (ID or URL), and maxProducts bounds are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Rappi restaurant menu and prices') and enumerates exactly what is returned: store name, brand, address, open status, ETA, delivery fee, rating, schedule, offers, and menu sections with per-product pricing. Naming Rappi and the covered countries lets an agent distinguish it from the many other ecommerce platform tools without opening the schema.

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?

It states the input precondition ('for a Rappi store ID') and an explicit exclusion ('From the public restaurant page; no store search'), which tells the agent this is a lookup-by-known-ID tool, not a discovery tool. No named alternative sibling is given, keeping it short of a 5.

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