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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: 'no account or token is required' clarifies auth requirements, and it enumerates what the response contains (methods, fees, scheduling).

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 tight sentences: purpose and auth note first, sibling routing second. Nothing redundant and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, annotations carry the safety profile, and all three params are covered. The description supplies the remaining essentials (what is fetched, auth not needed, sibling routing) with no gaps.

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 all three parameters. The description references `storeId` and `latitude`/`longitude` but adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb 'Fetch' plus the concrete resources returned (delivery methods, delivery fees, scheduling details), scoped to `storeId` at `latitude`/`longitude`. It also names the sibling tools it is not (menu, reviews, info), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 routes to alternatives with their purposes (doordash_store_menu for items, doordash_store_reviews for ratings, doordash_store_info for store details), which is strong negative-space guidance. It does not state a positive trigger or prerequisite (e.g. call before checkout), so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not.

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