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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only search/rank operation with no side effects. While not explicitly stating 'read-only', the nature of the tool implies it, and no destructive behavior is suggested.

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 concise, one sentence, and front-loads the primary action (search and rank) followed by the specific fields. No redundant content or fluff.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does (ranking across multiple attributes). It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it without needing additional details.

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 single parameter 'query' is described as 'Search text for ranked African food discovery', which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's raw type. This clarifies that the input is free-text search terms, and the 'ranked' aspect hints at the output ordering.

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 verb (search and rank) and resource (African food records) with a detailed scope of fields (names, aliases, categories, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_african_foods by emphasizing ranking by relevance.

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 this tool (when ranking by relevance is desired) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. The naming and description make the use case clear enough without direct comparison to siblings.

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