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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Find' suggests a read-only lookup, and the wording communicates scope, but it does not disclose output format, exact-versus-partial country matching semantics, behavior for non-African country names, or empty-result handling. It is not misleading, just under-specified.

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?

The description is a single brief sentence that front-loads the verb and object. There is no redundant material, and every word contributes to defining the tool's scope.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the core call is simple, but 'associated with' is ambiguous—it could mean country of origin, common availability, or cultural association. The description also does not help an agent distinguish this from find_foods_by_country, so an agent could call it but might not handle edge cases confidently.

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?

The only parameter, 'country', is already fully documented in the schema with 'Country to search for', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra detail about expected country name formats, case sensitivity, or valid values, leaving it at the 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?

The description names a specific action ('Find'), a specific resource ('African dishes'), and a specific criterion ('associated with a specific African country'). It distinguishes from ingredient- and region-based sibling tools, though it does not clarify how 'dishes' differs from 'foods' in find_foods_by_country.

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 phrase 'with a specific African country' implies this tool is for country-based dish lookups. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools like find_dishes_by_region or find_dishes_by_ingredient, and no exclusions are stated.

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