List Rappi coupons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, and the description repeats 'Read-only' and adds 'Does not apply a coupon,' which is redundant. It adds only the vague context of 'unofficial user-order-home' without disclosing additional traits like authentication, rate limits, or failure behaviors. The description adds minimal behavioral value beyond what annotations already provide.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, which is efficient. However, it repeats 'Read-only' which is already in the annotations, so some redundancy exists. It is not poorly structured but is more minimal than fully structured.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description lacks any explanation of the parameters, expected return format, or how the 'unofficial user-order-home' source affects results. It is under-specified for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly.

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 the properties privacy_mode and response_format have no descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not mention them at all. An agent has no guidance on what these parameters control or how to set them, making this a significant gap.

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 identifies the resource (wallet coupons) and clearly states it is a read-only operation that does not apply a coupon, which distinguishes it from coupon-related actions. Though the verb 'list' is not explicitly stated, the tool name and the context make the purpose evident.

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 implies the tool is for viewing coupons without applying them, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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