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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the tool produces an instruction plan instead of submitting anything, and the action must be carried out through cotlet_browser_* tools. It also explains why (no public consumer ordering API), which preempts an agent's assumption that an official API call exists. Missing only details like whether output varies by account state or rate limits.

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 key disclosure (it does not submit, it returns steps) is reasonably front-loaded in the first sentence. But the text is a semicolon-chained run-on that piles the API-status aside onto the same sentence, and the parenthetical "(checked 27 Oct 2026)" plus the "DoorDash's official API:" fragment are awkwardly spliced in and add little for the calling agent.

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, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), what it does not do, and which tools carry out the action. It is only thin on prerequisites and on how reliable or complete the returned steps are, which matters because the agent must act on them without a schema.

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, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, and there is nothing it fails to explain about inputs.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("submit order in the user's own DoorDash account") and immediately clarifies the surprising reality that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. An agent can tell what it produces (screens, buttons, fields) and what it does not do ("opens nothing by itself"). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the ordering siblings (add_item_to_cart, preview_order_total_with_fees), so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

It gives a partial workflow: call this, then execute the steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's DoorDash Cloud Browser. That is useful sequencing guidance. However, it never states preconditions (e.g. cart must be populated first) or when to prefer this over doordash_preview_order_total_with_fees or doordash_add_item_to_cart, so the when-to-use is implied rather than explicit.

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