Get Rappi order ETA

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only repeats 'Read-only,' adding no new behavioral context such as what happens for invalid order IDs, rate limits, or response handling. It adds negligible value beyond 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—two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('ETA for one order') and the safety qualifier ('Read-only'). While it is appropriately brief, it sacrifices detail for brevity, which is still acceptable for a simple tool.

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 there is no output schema and the schema has zero property descriptions, the description should explain more. It only covers the basic purpose and read-only nature, but fails to describe parameter usage, expected inputs, or what the ETA represents. An agent would likely need to infer parameter values from the enum names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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%, and the description says nothing about the three parameters (order_id, privacy_mode, response_format). It does not explain what values are acceptable for privacy_mode or response_format, nor does it clarify that order_id is required. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 says 'ETA for one order,' which clearly identifies the resource (order ETA) and the action (get). It is unambiguous and the tool name reinforces it. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like rappi_track_order or rappi_get_order_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'Read-only' signals that this is a safe query operation and implies it is used when the agent needs an ETA. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative order-related tools (e.g., rappi_get_order, rappi_track_order), nor any exclusions or context about when not to use it.

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