Get Rappi cart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: that street/phone/email/last-four are redacted by default. This informs the agent about output-shaped behavior and does not contradict the read-only annotation.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by one behavioral note. Every word earns its place, and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 inspection tool with a full annotation safety profile and self-descriptive enum parameters, the description is nearly complete. It discloses the default redaction behavior, which is the main thing an agent needs to anticipate output shape. No output schema exists, but the tool is simple enough that this isn't a material gap; a note on what fields the cart contains would push it higher.

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 burden for explaining parameters. However, both parameters (privacy_mode, response_format) are self-documenting enums that convey their meaning via names and values. The redaction sentence hints at privacy_mode's purpose but doesn't explicitly map it to the summary/structured/raw values. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('the current personal cart'), making the read-only intent clear. The word 'personal' helps distinguish it from the sibling rappi_web_cart, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 'current personal cart' implies this is for inspecting the active session's cart rather than the web cart or cart mutations, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer when to pick this over rappi_web_cart or cart items tools.

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