Rappi recent searches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description repeats 'read-only' but adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose variabilities like location-dependent results, privacy_mode effects, or response format nuances. Given the annotations cover the core safety profile, the description contributes almost nothing beyond what is already structured.

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 incredibly concise: 'Recent/top searches near a point. Read-only.' It is two short sentences with no fluff, and the main purpose is front-loaded. While it may be under-specifying, that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one. For what it says, it is efficiently 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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, this description is far too sparse. It does not explain what privacy_mode does, what each enum value means, how location impacts results, or what the response contains. Correct invocation is uncertain, especially the 'summary', 'structured', and 'raw' modes. The description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to use it reliably.

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 input schema has zero descriptions for any parameters, and the description does not compensate at all. It never mentions latitude, longitude, privacy_mode, or response_format. The enum values for privacy_mode (summary, structured, raw) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without any clue as to what each mode returns. This is a severe gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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 states 'Recent/top searches near a point. Read-only.' This clearly identifies the resource (recent/top searches) and the location context (near a point). It is distinct from sibling search tools like rappi_search_stores and rappi_search_products because it retrieves past searches rather than performing active searches. However, it lacks specificity about whose searches or what 'top' means, which holds it back from a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., rappi_search_stores) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the general purpose.

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