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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds concrete behavioral bounds: safe project metadata, at most 24 configured locales, and no phrase dictionary download, which goes beyond what the annotations cover.

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 with no filler. The first states the purpose, and the second supplies usage context and behavioral limits; every clause carries useful information.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema available, the description fully orients an agent: when to call it, what it returns at a high level, and what it deliberately avoids doing.

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 schema fully describes the sole parameter with its type, length constraints, and the phrase 'id or name (slug) to render.' The tool description echoes this without adding new format, resolution, or fallback details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Render a bounded overview for a known MultiLocale project.' It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects and get_project by noting the bounded view, the up-to-24-locale limit, and the absence of the phrase dictionary download.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: 'Use this after listing projects or when the user provides a project id or name.' It gives clear context but does not name alternative tools such as get_project or state when to prefer them instead.

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