Place Rappi order

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that the tool charges money, is fail-closed, requires a non-guest token, and never runs in default read-only mode. These are specific safety and operational traits not fully captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:true). It exceeds the structured data.

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 and front-loads the most critical safety information (fail-closed, charges money). It avoids fluff, but the lack of a purpose statement makes it efficient yet incomplete in coverage.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the order placement flow, required parameters, possible return states, or error conditions. The safety prerequisites are covered, but operational completeness is lacking.

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 only 17%, and the description does not compensate. It only indirectly references explicit_user_intent (via the requirement) but offers no explanation of address_id, payment_method_id, store_id, notes, or response_format. The description fails to clarify what these parameters mean or how they relate to placing an order.

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 focuses on constraints (fail-closed, charges money) rather than stating the action explicitly. It implies 'place an order' through the tool name but does not state a clear verb+resource in the description itself. It is not a tautology, but a direct statement of purpose is missing.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus siblings like checkout_preview or add_to_cart. The description explains prerequisites (mutation flag, user intent, personal token) but not the contextual triggers. This leaves the agent without guidance on selecting this tool over alternatives.

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