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

The description implies a read-only search operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, output format, or error handling. Since annotations are empty, the description carries the full burden and provides only minimal behavioral information.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly conveys the tool's purpose and includes an illustrative example, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter search tool, the description is sufficient to understand its function. It would benefit from mentioning the nature of the returned data, but given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, the description does not leave critical gaps.

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 schema provides a description for the 'region' parameter, giving 100% coverage. The tool description supplements this with concrete examples ('West Africa', 'Central Africa'), making the parameter's meaning clearer than the schema alone.

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 clearly states the verb 'Find' and the object 'African foods' with a specific filter by geographic region. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_dishes_by_region (which targets dishes) and find_foods_by_country (which targets countries).

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 provides a clear use case (finding foods by region) and gives examples of valid values, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over the many sibling search tools (e.g., find_dishes_by_region, find_foods_by_category).

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