Read Rappi courier chat

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that responses are redacted and that authorization failures produce JSON-formatted 401 errors. This adds meaningful behavioral context about privacy and error handling.

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, front-loads the most important routing information, and every segment carries useful information: the endpoint, error format, forbidden alternative, and read/redaction behavior. No filler is present.

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 read-only chat retrieval tool with annotations and a schema covering all parameters, the description is nearly complete. It includes the endpoint, error behavior, alternative route caveat, and redaction trait, though it does not describe the structure of the returned chat data or how privacy_mode affects output.

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?

The description indicates that order_id is embedded in the URL path, but it does not explain the semantics of privacy_mode or response_format. The schema provides enum values and a default, so the agent can infer possible choices, but the description does not clarify what each mode returns or how redaction relates to privacy_mode.

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 is explicit: it identifies the resource as the Rappi order chat, specifies the exact GET endpoint, and states the operation is read-only and redacted. It also distinguishes itself from the generic /api/ms/chat endpoint by noting that route is forbidden, preventing ambiguity.

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 provides clear context on which endpoint is valid and warns that the generic /api/ms/chat path returns 403 PATH_NOT_ALLOWED. It does not explicitly discuss alternative tools, but no chat-related sibling exists and the endpoint guidance is sufficient for the common use case.

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