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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: scans are bounded, and the result explicitly reports truncation of either the scan or output preview. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know, and it does not contradict the readOnly or idempotent hints.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place. The primary action is stated first, and the important truncation behavior follows without redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema, full parameter documentation, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains the core operation, the bounded-scan nature, and the truncation reporting, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, with project and scanLimit already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 specific verb and resource: it finds keys whose default-locale translations share the same value, within a bounded scan of one MultiLocale project. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling find_missing_translations without requiring schema inspection.

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 implies when to use it (to detect duplicate default-locale copy) and gives useful context like bounded scanning, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as search_phrases or find_missing_translations. Usage guidance is adequate but left mostly to inference.

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