Check if an account-owned DoorDash order is paid by reading its provider payment status code and paid flag; returns no payment secrets.
Read payment status for an order owned by this account, located in a 20-order history page. Returns provider status code and paid flag; no payment secrets.
| 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?
With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the bar is lower, yet the description adds valuable context: it returns provider status code and paid flag, exposes no payment secrets, and notes the paginated history constraint. This goes beyond annotations, though it omits pagination behavior details.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then return content and security note. 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?
No output schema exists, so the description appropriately describes return fields (provider status code, paid flag). Annotations cover safety. It nearly completes the picture but leaves offset semantics and edge cases (e.g., order not found) unaddressed.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the order ownership and 20-order page (implying offset semantics), but does not explain offset/min/max or the order_id pattern. Partial compensation yields baseline 3.
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 (Read) and resource (payment status), scoped to 'an order owned by this account'. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_consumer_order_status (general status) and get_order_operation.
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?
Implies scope via 'order owned by this account' and the 20-order page constraint, giving some context about when it applies. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., vs non-existent credential tools) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.