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

With no annotations supplied, the description usefully establishes retrieval behavior through "published criteria" and the HTTP GET equivalent. It also discloses that the tool is free, requires no payment, and involves no x402 challenge, while the pinned corpus and reproducibility statement add provenance context.

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 resource and its contents are front-loaded, followed logically by workflow guidance, payment behavior, and the HTTP equivalent. The wording is somewhat dense, and "no payment required," "without payment," and "this tool is free" redundantly repeat the same point.

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 zero-parameter criteria lookup, the description covers the information returned, service and family versions, reproducibility rationale, cost, and an equivalent invocation route. This is sufficient to select and call the tool despite the absence of annotations and an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-documentation burden and the baseline score applies. "Call directly" and the parameterless GET URL reinforce that invocation requires no additional inputs.

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 precisely identifies the resource as the Failure Translator's published criteria and specifies its contents: the outcome-artefact mapping table, reason classes, retry verdicts, and pinned public test corpus identity. It clearly conveys a criteria lookup rather than a translation operation, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from failure_translator_precheck or failure_translator_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?

"Read these before paying" gives an explicit point in the workflow to use the tool, while "call directly without payment" explains how to invoke it. It does not name the sibling tools to use afterward or state when this criteria lookup is unnecessary.

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