Rappi privacy audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent. It adds the specific behaviors ('checkout is off unless both gates are set') which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose further side effects or edge cases. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotations. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's function.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral outcome. It could elaborate on what 'both gates' refers to, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The lack of output schema makes the description's indication of what it shows more important, and it does that well.

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% (the parameter `response_format` has no description in the schema). The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. However, the parameter is trivial with an enum and default, so the lack of explanation is a minor gap; still, the description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Shows') and names concrete resources (redaction defaults, token path, checkout gating) — clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which are primarily transactional (cart, orders, search). It's not a tautology and an agent can immediately understand the tool's output.

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 usage (if you need to inspect privacy/audit state, call this) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude other tools. There are no competing audit-like siblings, so it's acceptable, but it offers no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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