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

Annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-open-world operation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by stating that nothing is opened and that the return value is a procedural guide. The note that DoorDash has no public consumer ordering API explains why a browser flow is required, which is useful behavioral context. It stops short of describing the shape or length of the returned guide.

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?

Core behavior and sequencing are front-loaded and clear, but the opening phrase "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is marketing noise that does not help an agent decide anything. The closing sentence is awkwardly constructed ("DoorDash's official API: DoorDash has no public API...") and could be one tighter clause.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what an agent most needs: what comes back (screens, buttons, fields in order), that no side effects occur, and which tool family to use next. The only gap is the concrete format or granularity of the returned steps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed by presenting it as a pure lookup of a procedure. Nothing about parameter meaning is missing or misleading.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get order status in the user's own DoorDash account") and immediately clarifies the surprising part: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than fetching the status itself. That distinction separates it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which it names explicitly. Slightly marked down because the tool name implies retrieval while the actual behavior is guidance retrieval.

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?

Gives a clear two-step workflow: call this to get the click-by-click procedure, then execute it with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's DoorDash Cloud Browser. It is explicit about this tool not performing the action ("opens nothing by itself"). It does not, however, say when to prefer other doordash_* siblings (e.g., list_past_orders) over this one.

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