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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and 'Find' does convey that this is a non-mutating lookup operation. However, it discloses nothing about return shape, result limits, or behavior when no foods match a given region. For a simple read tool the surface is small, but with zero annotation support the description could reasonably state what the caller gets back.

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?

A single 14-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the clarifying examples at the end. Every word earns its place, and the length is proportionate to a one-parameter tool. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 lookup with full schema coverage, an agent can successfully invoke the tool with just this description plus the schema. What is missing is guidance on the foods-vs-dishes sibling overlap and any indication of the return value, since there is no output schema and no annotation coverage. It is adequate but does not fully equip the agent to disambiguate among related tools.

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 baseline is 3; the region parameter is already documented as an 'African region to search for'. The description adds value above the schema by giving concrete value examples ('West Africa or Central Africa') that clarify the expected granularity and format of the region string.

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 verb ('Find'), resource ('African foods'), and scope ('associated with a geographic region'), which is clearly distinct in intent. The concrete examples 'West Africa or Central Africa' distinguish region-based lookup from country- or ingredient-based siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the near-twin find_dishes_by_region, leaving the foods-vs-dishes distinction to the tool names alone.

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 region examples imply the intended input scale (broad regions, not countries or ingredients), which provides some usage guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over find_foods_by_country or find_dishes_by_region, and no exclusions are mentioned across the 12 sibling tools. The guidance is present only by inference.

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