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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: the results come from a bounded, evidence-based graph of shared canonical ingredients rather than an LLM guess, spanning >10,000 edges, ~2,000 recipes and 26 countries, with every edge crossing country lines. This characterizes the closed-world nature of the dataset consistently with openWorldHint=false.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the provenance claim, then the usage example. Every sentence carries information, though the edge-count and country-count statistics are slightly decorative relative to a single-line purpose.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fully explains what the tool is and what backs its results; only the choice of this tool versus compare_dishes/search_dishes is left unstated.

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%, so the schema already documents dish resolution, lang enum, limit, country and the deliberately-zero min_score default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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'), a precise resource ('dishes from other cuisines equivalent to a given dish'), and names the backing data structure ('eatmundo's scored equivalence graph'). The scoping phrase 'from other cuisines' and 'every edge crosses country lines' implicitly separates it from search_dishes and compare_dishes without needing to open either schema.

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 a concrete usage context ('what is the Greek counterpart of lahmacun, and why'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It does not name explicit exclusions or point to sibling tools like compare_dishes, so it falls short of the when-not/alternatives bar for a 5.

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