doordash_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: 'No DoorDash account or caller-supplied token is required' and specifies the data source ('Android mobile guest experience'). It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or response format, but the auth context and source are valuable additions.

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 description is two sentences: the first is a concise action statement, and the second packs useful details about content, source, and auth requirements. While the phrase 'for a location' is slightly redundant given the required coordinates, every sentence contributes meaningful information without excessive verbosity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description gives a clear idea of what the feed returns (restaurants, grocery stores, offers) and notes the no-auth requirement. It covers the essential context for a simple feed tool with pagination parameters, though it omits details about result structure or pagination behavior. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (latitude, longitude, limit, offset) with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the feed contents ('trending restaurants, grocery stores, and promotional offers') but does not enhance parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as 'Get DoorDash store discovery feed' and specifies that it returns nearby trending restaurants, grocery stores, and promotional offers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like doordash_search (which likely performs query-based search) and doordash_explore, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies use cases (discovery feed for a location) via the required latitude/longitude, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like doordash_search or doordash_explore. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternative tools, so usage context is only implied.

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