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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only promises to 'resolve' an input and return 'standardized dish information'. It does not disclose behavior for unknown names, ambiguous matches, partial/alias matching, case sensitivity, or what fields the standardized information contains.

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 sentence with no filler; the operation, target, and outcome are front-loaded. Every part of the sentence earns its place, and nothing is redundant.

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?

This is a low-complexity single-parameter lookup with no output schema, and the description covers the essential query and result promise. However, it omits edge-case behavior (unknown or ambiguous dishes) and the shape of 'standardized dish information', so it is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter, query, and the description essentially repeats the schema text. The phrase 'African dish name or alias' adds no new format, normalization, or example guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('African dish name or alias') and states the output ('standardized dish information'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like find_dishes_by_country, search_african_foods, and especially resolve_african_term, which resolves a term rather than a dish.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The intended use—given a known dish name or alias, not browsing by country or ingredient—is implied by the description and sibling names, but the tool does not state that it should be preferred over search/list/find variants for aliases.

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