List Rappi orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' text is redundant. The description adds minimal context (tracking summaries) but doesn't disclose output format, pagination, rate limits, or privacy implications. Since annotations cover safety, the bar is lower, but the description adds little beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that gets to the point immediately. It is concise and free of fluff. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details, which is a structural tradeoff.

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 tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what the list contains beyond 'tracking summaries', nor how privacy_mode affects output. It also lacks guidance on selecting this among many order-related siblings. Overall, it leaves too much open for an agent to call 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%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It fails to explain privacy_mode (summary/structured/raw) or response_format (markdown/json), leaving agents to guess their meaning. The description doesn't even mention that parameters exist, so it provides zero semantic value.

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 'List recent personal orders / tracking summaries' clearly states the verb (list), resource (personal orders), and scope (recent). It also hints at output content (tracking summaries), distinguishing it from sibling tools like rappi_list_active_orders. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other order-related tools, so it's clear but not fully distinct.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'recent personal orders' implies a historical scope, it doesn't explain when to prefer this over rappi_list_active_orders, rappi_get_order, or rappi_track_order. There is no mention of exclusions or contextual triggers.

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