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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that results are bounded and that the output is a Markdown and structured preview containing id, key, language, and value. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 zero filler. The main action and scope lead, optional filters follow, and the return behavior closes the statement—each 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?

With a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential usage and result shape. It could additionally mention limits on the bounded preview or sorting behavior, but 'bounded' plus the structured preview suffices for an agent to invoke the tool 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the filter-by-language-or-key semantics already present in the schema but does not add extra meaning beyond what the property descriptions provide, such as format constraints or interaction effects between filters.

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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and resource ('translation phrases for a MultiLocale project'). It specifies optional filtering by language or key, and distinguishes the list operation from singular 'get_phrase' by nature. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with 'search_phrases', which would have secured a 5.

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 statement 'Optionally filter by language or key' implies a typical use case—enumerating phrases with optional narrowing. Yet there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over the closely related 'search_phrases', 'get_phrase', or 'export_locale_dictionary' tools, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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