Find a DoorDash order's history status by order ID or UUID, following next_offset if absent from the current 20-order page. Reports history status, not courier tracking.
Find an order in a 20-order history page by order ID/UUID. Follow next_offset if absent. Reports history status, not courier tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | ||
| order_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already grant readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior the annotations don't: the lookup operates on a 20-order history page, pagination continues via next_offset, and the returned status is history status rather than courier tracking. That is meaningful disclosure beyond structured fields.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the core operation stated first and the disambiguation and pagination hints following. Every sentence carries information.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description usefully mentions next_offset as a return field, but it omits how the offset input relates to paging and provides no guidance on what the status values mean. Adequate but with a clear gap around pagination input semantics.
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 0% for two parameters, and the description never explains the 'offset' parameter (range 0-10000, default 0). It refers to a 'next_offset' response value but does not tie it to the input offset, and only loosely characterizes order_id as 'order ID/UUID'. With zero schema-level descriptions the description should carry this burden and does not.
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?
States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('an order') plus the lookup key (order ID/UUID), and explicitly scopes the output ('history status, not courier tracking'). It does not name which sibling to prefer versus get_order_operation or get_order_payment_status, so the differentiation is partial rather than complete.
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?
Gives one concrete procedural hint ('Follow next_offset if absent'), which is real usage guidance, but never states when to choose this tool over list_consumer_orders or get_order_payment_status. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.