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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that it finds dishes by region but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., list of dishes), whether it is a read-only operation, or any side effects. The phrasing 'associated with' is vague about the exact matching behavior.

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, tightly worded sentence that conveys the essential information without unnecessary detail. It is easy to parse and immediately actionable.

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?

The description is minimal and lacks context about the output format (e.g., list or single result), the possibility of empty results, or any constraints. Given that there is no output schema, this omission leaves the tool's behavior under-specified for an agent.

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 parameter 'region' has a descriptive schema ('African region to search for') and the tool description enriches it with concrete examples ('West Africa or Central Africa'). This provides clear guidance on expected values beyond the basic schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('African dishes') and the scope ('by region'). It is distinct from sibling tools like find_dishes_by_country and find_dishes_by_ingredient, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool by mentioning 'geographic region' and providing examples, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives. There is no direct comparison or condition like 'use this if you have a region rather than a country'.

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