rappi_checkout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool navigates Chrome directly to a URL and requires manual completion, which reveals a key behavioral trait. However, it omits prerequisites like authentication status, potential side effects, or what happens if the store_type is invalid.

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 concise with three short paragraphs: a summary sentence, details about URL and store_type, and the args list. No redundant information is present, and the key point is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use the parameter, and the manual completion requirement. It could mention error handling or output structure, but for a basic navigation tool it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that store_type is a slug from rappi_list_stores or rappi_add_to_cart and provides concrete examples (e.g., 'turbo_rappidrinks_nc'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 ('open the Rappi checkout page in Chrome') and the purpose ('so the user can complete payment'). It specifies the resource (checkout page) and distinguishes from sibling tools like rappi_add_to_cart by focusing on checkout.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: after adding items to cart, by passing the same store_type used in rappi_add_to_cart. It also notes that the user must finish the order manually. No explicit exclusion of alternatives is given, but the context is sufficient.

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