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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that no DoorDash account or token is needed and that the call is 'lightweight', which sets expectations about auth and response cost.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields in a compact parenthetical, followed by the required inputs. Nothing is wasted and the reader gets the essentials first.

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 a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to add the auth context and payload summary, which it does. Minor gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to sibling store tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents storeId, latitude, and longitude in detail. The description merely restates that these three are required without adding format or semantic detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and enumerates exactly what the card returns (map coordinates, address, phone number), so an agent understands the payload. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like doordash_store or doordash_store_fulfillment, so the sibling boundary is left to inference.

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 implies usage by calling itself a lightweight location/contact card and notes that no account or token is required, which is a useful prerequisite. But it never says when to prefer this over doordash_store, so no explicit when/when-not or alternative is offered.

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