doordash_store_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it identifies the data source (Android mobile guest experience), the nature of the response (lightweight card with specific fields), reliability (reliably includes address/coordinates), and the auth requirement (none). It could add more about error cases or the role of the delivery coordinates, but the disclosed traits are useful and go beyond a generic 'get store info'.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second details the response content and source, and the third differentiates from the full endpoint and covers auth. Every sentence earns its place and the 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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (map coordinates, address, phone), its source, and auth requirements, which is largely sufficient. The main gap is that it does not explain why delivery latitude/longitude are required and how they influence the lookup, nor does it describe the output structure beyond a 'card'. Given the low complexity, this is a minor omission.

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 100% coverage with basic descriptions for store_id, latitude, and longitude (e.g., 'Delivery latitude'). The tool description mentions returned coordinates, address, and phone, but does not explain the relationship between the delivery latitude/longitude inputs and the returned store coordinates, nor does it add any additional semantic nuance beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets DoorDash store contact info and returns a lightweight info card with map coordinates, address, and phone number. It differentiates itself from the full store endpoint by noting it is a 'distinct upstream contract' and reliably includes address/coordinates, which also distinguishes it from siblings like doordash_store_menu or doordash_store_reviews.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you need lightweight contact info and reliable address/coordinates, and explicitly notes it is a distinct contract from the full store endpoint (implying use this instead of a heavier endpoint). It also removes a potential barrier by stating no account or token is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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