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

Annotations are empty, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It states the operation is a list, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting, limits, or the shape of the returned records. For a read-only listing tool with no annotations, this is a minimal disclosure.

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, well-formed sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose but omits return format details and any constraints on the list size or ordering. An agent might not know whether it receives full records or just names.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed. Baseline 4 applies.

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 a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('all standardized African food records in the AfriResolve knowledge base'), which distinguishes it from the filtered search siblings like find_* and search_african_foods. It unambiguously indicates a comprehensive, unfiltered listing.

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 the use case is retrieving the complete set of foods without filters, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use other tools. It is clear but leaves the agent to infer that filtered searches belong to siblings.

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