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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a bounded scan, it explicitly reports partial scans, and it never creates translations. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations rather than merely repeating them.

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 tightly written sentences convey purpose, scope, result behavior, and safety guarantee with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 read-only reporting tool with full schema parameter documentation and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the scan scope, comparison baseline, partial-scan transparency, and non-destructive behavior, 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the comparison baseline (project default locale) and the bounded nature of the scan (one locale or up to 10 locales), which enriches the agent's understanding of language and localeLimit 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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('missing keys... compared with the project default locale'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing detection of missing translations rather than export, search, or phrase editing.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for reporting translation coverage gaps across one or multiple locales. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when this read-only reporting tool is appropriate.

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