DoorDash MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the results take. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words: 'Search for restaurants and food on DoorDash'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, contains zero wasted words, and efficiently communicates the essential information in a single, clear sentence.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what the search returns (restaurant listings? menu items? availability?), whether authentication is required, how results are structured, or any limitations. For a tool that presumably returns complex search results, this minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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% description coverage, with the single 'query' parameter clearly documented as 'Search query (e.g. 'pizza', 'sushi', 'McDonald\'s')'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Search for restaurants and food on DoorDash'. It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('restaurants and food'), and identifies the platform ('DoorDash'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this search tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_store_menu' or 'list_carts', which might also involve restaurant/food information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this search tool should be used instead of 'get_store_menu' (which might retrieve specific menu details) or 'list_carts' (which might show cart contents). There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions for using this search functionality.

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