doordash_store_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that no authentication is required and identifies the data source as the Android mobile guest experience. However, it does not mention response format, pagination, rate limits, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, what it returns, and the auth requirement. There is no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for a simple read tool: it states what it returns (ratings and reviews), notes the auth-free access, and gives the source context. However, since there is no output schema, it would benefit from more detail on the response structure or potential limitations such as pagination. Still, it is sufficiently complete for basic usage.

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 has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning, only hinting via 'for a location' that latitude and longitude correspond to the delivery area. This does not exceed the baseline, so a 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 reviews and specifies it returns store ratings and customer reviews. The verb 'Get' and resource 'DoorDash store reviews' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling DoorDash tools like doordash_store_info and doordash_store_menu by focusing on reviews. The mention of 'Android mobile guest experience' adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 for retrieving DoorDash store reviews for a location, which is clear context. It also provides a key prerequisite by stating no DoorDash account or caller-supplied token is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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