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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: the large scale ('250+'), the cost ('Free'), and that search matches either code or English name. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two compact sentences with zero filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the optional filter and cost, so an agent can parse the essential behavior quickly.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers scope, filtering behavior, and cost, while annotations cover safety and idempotency. No critical information is missing.

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 schema already documents 'search' as a case-insensitive filter with examples. The description adds meaning by specifying that the search string matches code or English name, which clarifies the exact semantics of the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description's added matching detail earns a 4.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List the 250+ language codes supported by mazdek_translate.' It also states the optional search filter and the matching behavior, so an agent immediately knows what the tool returns. The wording differentiates it from mazdek_list_spellcheck_languages by explicitly tying it to mazdek_translate.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent needs the language codes that mazdek_translate supports. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the translation-specific framing makes the intended use obvious, especially alongside mazdek_list_spellcheck_languages.

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