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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results come from a scored equivalence graph, edges are based on shared canonical ingredients rather than language-model guesses, and all edges cross country lines. This helps the agent trust and interpret the output beyond what annotations convey.

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 focused sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second establishes provenance and trustworthiness, and the third gives a concrete usage prompt. The content is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 read-only lookup with a high-quality input schema and an output schema available, the description covers everything needed for correct selection and invocation. It explains the data source, scope, evidence basis, and typical use case without redundantly repeating schema details.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions themselves are detailed (including min_score's non-obvious default rationale). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall equivalence-graph context, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific action ('Find dishes from other cuisines that are equivalent to a given dish') tied to a concrete resource ('eatmundo's scored equivalence graph'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings by emphasizing cross-country equivalence and evidence-based edges, so an agent can distinguish it from compare_dishes or search_dishes.

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 gives a concrete usage example ('what is the Greek counterpart of lahmacun') and implicitly scopes the tool to cross-cuisine comparisons. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear enough for confident selection.

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