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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that it returns translations and alternative phrasings, mentions auto-provisioned API keys, and notes formality control. However, it does not address rate limits, logging, or whether it is read-only (though translation is typically non-destructive).

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 a concise three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and key features. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the primary purpose, supported features, and return value (translation plus optional alternatives). For a tool with no output schema, this is adequate. However, it could improve by mentioning error handling or the list of supported languages.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the 'context' parameter's role in disambiguation and the 'formality' parameter's register control, but does not significantly augment the schema descriptions for other parameters.

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 clearly states the tool translates text between 13+ languages, highlighting Arabic-first quality, formality control, and context support. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ocr_and_translate (which handles images) and extract_document (which extracts text from documents).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (text translation, both short lookups and full documents) but does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives. It implies that for text without images this tool is appropriate, but lacks direct exclusions.

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