doordash_store_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that DoorDash's anonymous menu surface has no stable per-item identifier, matching is by name only, a missing name returns 404, and no account/token is required. It does not describe the return payload shape or rate/permission caveats, but those are minor given the read-only nature implied by 'Get.'

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?

Four sentences, with each earning its place: the purpose, the matching convention, the error behavior, and the auth requirement. The most important point (specific item by name) is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 single-item getter with four required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical pitfalls: how to match the item, where to get that name, what happens on a bad name, and auth. It does not detail what specific fields are returned in 'details' or how latitude/longitude affect the result, but this is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds important semantic value beyond the schema: it clarifies that the parameter item_id is actually a menu-item name, not a stable identifier, and that the name should come from the store menu or item search. This is highly relevant and prevents a likely misuse of the parameter.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get DoorDash menu item details.' It further clarifies that it returns details for one menu item from the Android mobile guest experience, matched by name, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like doordash_store_menu and doordash_search_items. An agent can tell immediately what this tool does.

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 gives clear functional context: it matches items by name, case-insensitively, against a store's menu, and instructs the caller to use a name 'returned by the store menu or item search.' It also explains the no-substitute behavior for absent items. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them, so it falls short of a full 5.

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