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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations by disclosing the key behavioral trait: it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns navigation steps. That is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot convey. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned steps.

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 core message leads and is useful, but the text carries filler: 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is promotional, and the 'checked 27 Oct 2026' API note is irrelevant to invoking this tool. Roughly a third of the text does not help the agent act.

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, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns, that it has no side effects, and what to do next. The only meaningful omission is how the target store is determined.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, but the definition never addresses the obvious semantic gap: nothing identifies which store's menu is being read, so an agent cannot tell whether the output is store-specific or generic guidance resolved from the browser session. That unresolved question is worth a deduction.

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 ('read store menu') and immediately clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) rather than the menu data itself. That clarification is essential because the name alone would mislead. It stops short of 5 because the mismatch between the name and the instruction-returning behavior still takes two readings to absorb.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow: call it first to get steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the DoorDash Cloud Browser. It also rules out an alternative path by noting DoorDash has no public consumer ordering API, which explains why browser automation is required. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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