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 richly: it discloses cost (spends credits), scope of mutation (translates screenshot text and store listing), an exception rule (social screenshot text copied unchanged), a non-effect (does not switch the open language), and two failure modes (insufficient credits, existing code). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations would otherwise need to supply.

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 action is front-loaded, then each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact (scope, exception, cost, non-effect, failures) with no filler. It is dense but every sentence earns its place; only minor tightening is possible.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers action, scope, side effects, cost, and failure conditions the agent needs to invoke it correctly. No meaningful gap remains.

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% and the schema already documents the languages array with limits (1-5) and example codes. The description only restates the 'up to 5 languages' cap, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (add/translate up to 5 languages) and resource (the open language's iOS/Android screenshot text and store listing), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the set_language sibling by noting it 'Does not switch the open language'. An agent can route to it correctly without opening any 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?

Usage context is clear: use it to add languages via the AI localize flow, with caveats that it spends credits and fails if the account cannot spend or a code already exists. It implies but never explicitly names the alternative (set_language) for actually switching the open language, so it falls just 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.