Get Rappi order status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the explicit 'Read-only' label, which is consistent but redundant. It doesn't describe the actual response shape, data freshness, or any caveats about the status surface. Since annotations cover the safety profile well, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 very short ('Courier/order-status surface for one order. Read-only.'), which makes it easy to parse. However, it is too terse to be truly informative. 'Surface' is an awkward term that may confuse. It's concise but sacrifices necessary detail. A balanced description would be slightly longer but still efficient.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The description provides only the most basic idea—that it returns order status for one order. It does not explain what data is returned, how to set privacy_mode or response_format, or any constraints like authentication. An agent would not know how to correctly invoke it beyond passing an order_id. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (order_id, privacy_mode, response_format) are explained in the schema. The description does not mention any parameter names or their meaning. It gives no hint about what 'privacy_mode' options (summary, structured, raw) do or how response_format affects output. With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so entirely.

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 states a clear purpose: it's a courier/order-status surface for one order. The verb 'get' is implied from the tool name, and 'status' is specific enough. It distinguishes from list-type tools like rappi_list_orders by saying 'for one order', though it does not explicitly differentiate from other order-specific tools like rappi_get_order or rappi_track_order. Still, the resource and scope are clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says 'for one order' but doesn't explain how this differs from rappi_get_order, rappi_track_order, or rappi_get_order_eta. There is no mention of when not to use it or what conditions would favor a sibling tool. The agent is left to infer from sibling names.

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