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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable behavioral trait—preserving brand names and terminology consistency—which goes beyond the mere act of translating. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as output format, error handling, or any limitations (e.g., handling of code or HTML). It provides some context but is not comprehensive.

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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (bidirectional translation) and immediately adds the key differentiator (overseas context and brand/terminology preservation). There is zero redundancy, and every word contributes to clarity. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has a straightforward two-parameter schema and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the core function and a key contextual nuance. However, it omits details such as how the direction is specified (though that is in the schema), any prerequisites or constraints, and whether there are any special handling rules for mixed-language text. For a simple translation tool, it is adequate but not exhaustive, leaving room for more context.

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 input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage (text and to_lang with default and allowed values). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or nuances about parameter usage. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, the description is not required to repeat parameter details, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear, specific operation: bidirectional Chinese-English translation tailored for overseas scenarios, with an explicit emphasis on preserving brand names and terminology. This is a specific verb (translate) applied to a well-defined resource (text), and it clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools (draft_outreach_email, draft_weekly_brief) which are unrelated drafting actions.

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 context that the tool is intended for overseas scenarios, which implies a use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. It neither names sibling tools nor mentions any exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it meets a basic level but lacks direct routing.

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