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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior beyond structured fields: names and numbers are preserved, source language is auto-detected when omitted, and the paragraph structure is maintained. It doesn't describe the return payload, but the added semantic behavior is meaningful.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact usage line and example. Slightly redundant in restating the 10,000-character limit that the schema already declares, but overall well-sized with no wasted paragraphs.

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 straightforward single-purpose translation tool with a complete schema, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough: scope, language breadth, source detection, and an example call. The only gap is that it never states what the response looks like, which for a translate tool is largely self-evident.

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%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only restates the character limit and repeats target-language examples that the schema already provides, adding no new parameter-level meaning such as code format rules or error behavior for unsupported languages.

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 (translates) and resource (text: sentence, message, or whole document) plus concrete scope (up to 10,000 characters) and the ~100-language reach. No sibling tools exist, so no differentiation burden, and the purpose is unmistakable from the first sentence.

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 'Use when: you need to translate a text or document into English, French, Dutch, German...' line gives clear situational context, and the example call shows the intended shape. There are no alternative tools to exclude or route between, so nothing is left ambiguous — just no explicit when-not guidance because none is applicable.

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