Search Rappi products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description merely repeats that with 'Read-only' and 'Does not add to cart.' No additional behavioral context is provided—nothing about response format, limits, privacy_mode behavior, or potential side effects. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description adds little 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 extremely short (three short sentences), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to earn its sentences by adding only redundant read-only information. While not verbose, the brevity is at the cost of essential operational details.

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?

With six optional parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no examples, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters influence the search, how privacy_mode or response_format behave, or any usage nuances. An agent has almost no information to call this tool correctly beyond the schema's bare field types.

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 must compensate by explaining parameters. However, the description mentions none of the six parameters (query, limit, latitude, longitude, privacy_mode, response_format). It gives no meaning to any of them, leaving the agent completely dependent on the schema, which also lacks descriptions. This is a major gap.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Search products near a point') and distinguishes itself from cart-modifying tools by stating 'Does not add to cart.' It is not a tautology and gives a clear, specific purpose, though it does not explicitly name alternative search tools like browse_catalog or search_stores.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes the tool is read-only and does not add to cart, which implies safe usage, but it does not explicitly state conditions for choosing this tool over siblings like rappi_browse_catalog or rappi_search_stores. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given.

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