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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses a per-call payment ($0.02 USDC via x402 in _meta), a free 3-row preview escape hatch, and data provenance (values as recorded in Wikidata, nothing estimated). It also sets expectations about sparse coverage, which prevents the agent from misreading empty results as an error.

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?

Three dense sentences: what it is, how to query it, what comes back, then caveats and pricing. Nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim and no sentence is filler; the routing and cost details are front-loaded where the agent needs them.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly spells out the return shape: QID, English and Japanese names, and all linked countries. Combined with the coverage caveat and payment terms, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret sparse results.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'q' is a dish name in English or Japanese, 'iso3' is the country key, and limit caps rows per route. It does not state accepted limit ranges or whether q supports partial matching, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific resource and the two lookup modes: dishes linked to a country by ISO3, or a dish by name in English/Japanese. It also names the exact route signatures (/dish q*, /dishes iso3*) so the agent can distinguish the two operations without opening the schema.

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 route signatures implicitly tell the agent which mode to pick (country lookup vs. name lookup), and it flags the free sample=true preview path plus the paid $0.02 default. It does not explicitly exclude cases or point at a sibling tool for cross-domain queries, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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