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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the core behavioral trait the annotations cannot express: this operation spends credits, at 1 per text-bearing image per language, with text-free images copied free. It also notes each language becomes a separate image set and documents the return value (new image set ids) despite there being no output schema.

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?

It is front-loaded with the outcome first, then cost, then the required two-step workflow, then the example — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The single dense block runs slightly long and mixes cost, semantics and example in one paragraph, costing it the top score.

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 credit-spending mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is produced, what is preserved, the cost model, the mandatory dry_run confirmation step, what is returned, and the follow-up tool. There is no material gap left for the caller to guess at.

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 67%, and the description compensates by explaining that locales are target languages, that they each produce their own set, and by including a concrete example payload with image_set_id, locales and dry_run. It adds little about the uuid-shaped image_set_id, but that parameter is self-evident and fully constrained by the schema.

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 verb and resource ('makes a finished image set in other languages') and pins down exactly what changes — only the text on images is translated while numbers, units and names are kept. The amazon.com → amazon.de/fr example makes the transformation unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like edit_image or copy_image_to_set.

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?

Gives an explicit ordered workflow: call with dry_run true first, tell the person the cost, then call without it to actually spend credits. It also routes the agent forward ('follow them with get_image_set') and points to list_packs for language codes, leaving nothing to inference about when and how to invoke it.

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