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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns all standardized dish records, but it does not clarify output shape, ordering, pagination, potential payload size, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is a noticeable gap for a list operation.

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, clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the main action and resource immediately, making it easy for an agent 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 zero-parameter list operation, the description is minimally viable: it tells the agent exactly what will be listed. However, it omits any detail about the returned records' structure, list size, or pagination behavior, and it does not address the potential confusion with sibling list_african_foods. These gaps keep it from being fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema documents this completely with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('all standardized African dish records'), and a location ('AfriResolve knowledge base'). It is understandable and correctly indicates a read-only enumeration operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling list_african_foods.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as find_dishes_by_country, find_dishes_by_ingredient, or resolve_african_dish. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing hints; the intended usage is only implied by the word 'List all'.

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