Retrieve DoorDash store metadata by store ID and coordinates through the Android guest flow, with no account or token required.
Get a DoorDash store. Returns location-aware DoorDash store metadata through the Android mobile guest flow. No DoorDash account or caller-supplied token is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Delivery latitude | |
| store_id | Yes | Numeric DoorDash store ID | |
| longitude | Yes | Delivery longitude |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no account/token is required and that it uses the mobile guest flow, which is valuable behavioral context. Yet it does not mention whether it is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or the exact structure of the returned metadata.
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 clear sentences, front-loaded with 'Get a DoorDash store' and no wasted words. Every sentence adds meaningful information: purpose, return type, location awareness, and authentication requirements.
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 simple single-store lookup with 3 fully-described parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, key behavioral context, and auth requirements. It could elaborate on what 'metadata' includes, but overall it suffices.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'location-aware' qualifier, which reinforces the role of latitude/longitude but doesn't provide format details beyond the schema. No additional parameter meaning is contributed.
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 opens with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'a DoorDash store', then clarifies it returns 'location-aware DoorDash store metadata'. This directly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like doordash_store_menu or doordash_store_reviews by emphasizing the metadata and guest flow.
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 provides useful context ('through the Android mobile guest flow', 'No DoorDash account or caller-supplied token is required') implying this is the public, unauthenticated store lookup. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity among the many DoorDash sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.