Get Rappi store

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

The description repeats that the operation is read-only, which is already covered by annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds no additional context about response formats, error behavior, or the implications of 'unofficial' backend. Given annotations already disclose the safety profile, the description adds minimal value but does not contradict them.

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, comprising two short clauses with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it omits crucial details about parameters and usage, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

With 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify parameter meanings, expected return values, or how it fits among store-related siblings. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without external knowledge or guessing.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters. While store_id is intuitive, privacy_mode and response_format are enums that would benefit from explanation, and none is provided. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema property names.

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 purpose as retrieving a store's catalog/detail, with a specific endpoint reference. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browse_stores or search_stores by focusing on a single store ID, though it does not explicitly name differences. The verb 'get' and resource 'store' are precise.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browse_stores, search_stores, or browse_catalog. It does not state that this is for fetching a specific store by ID or mention any prerequisites. The agent must infer context from the name and schema.

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