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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add context — which it does by disclosing the exact field set returned (taste levels 0–3, risk flags for raw/offal/alcohol/bones/shared plates) and the important limitation that allergen and diet data describe only the typical recipe. That limitation is genuine behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the safety caveat. The long field enumeration is dense but each item conveys real information about the payload; nothing is redundant with the title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly, including risk flags and taste scale. Only minor gaps remain — no mention of result volume, pagination, or behavior on empty matches — which are low-risk for a read-only dictionary lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is already well documented in the schema, including the language fallback and ISO code format. The description only lightly reinforces parameter meaning ('name in the requested language and locally'), so 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?

Names a specific resource (JumunCheck's dish dictionary) scoped to one country, and enumerates the content returned. It is clearly distinguishable from jumuncheck_get_country_rules and jumuncheck_list_places by resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'dish dictionary for one country' and the query/lang parameters, and it gives downstream guidance ('always tell the person to confirm with the restaurant'). However, it never states when to choose this over siblings like jumuncheck_get_country_rules or jumuncheck_get_guide, leaving routing to inference.

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