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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup and return of information, but does not disclose potential normalization, canonicalization, error behavior, or whether it ever falls back to partial matching. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 one concise sentence with no redundant words or filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description leaves the return format vague as 'standardized dish information' and does not specify what fields are included. It is adequate for a basic resolver but lacks detail an agent might need to confidently use the result.

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 'query' parameter is described in the schema as 'The African dish name or alias to resolve', which fully covers its meaning. The tool description repeats this but adds no extra nuance; still, the parameter is simple and clearly specified.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('African dish name or alias'), and indicates the result ('standardized dish information'). It is distinct from sibling search/find/list tools, which focus on lookup by criteria rather than resolving a specific name or alias.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many siblings such as search_african_foods, find_dishes_by_country, or resolve_african_term. The intended use case is only implicit in the verb 'resolve', with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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