Find restaurant autocomplete matches for your current delivery location by entering a search query; returns up to 50 localized results for building DoorDash orders.
Restaurant autocomplete matches for the current browser delivery location. Not an exhaustive restaurant directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are scoped to the current browser delivery location, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about result count behavior or why the location constraint matters.
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 core purpose and immediately followed by the key scoping caveat. No wasted words.
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 simple two-param read tool the coverage is adequate: purpose, location scoping, and a non-directory caveat. But with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the missing parameter semantics leave the agent slightly under-informed.
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% and there are two parameters. The description adds no meaning for 'query' or 'limit' at all, so the agent gets no guidance on what a valid query looks like or how limit affects matching.
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 (autocomplete search) and resource (restaurants), and clarifies it is match-based discovery, not a full directory. Falls short of 5 because it does not differentiate from siblings like get_restaurant_menu or the ordering tools that the agent would also see.
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 'not an exhaustive directory' note implies usage context (discovery/autocomplete) but never says when to call this versus get_restaurant_menu or place_order. Usage is only loosely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.