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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds value by disclosing the output form ('bounded Markdown and structured preview') and the scope of returned data ('ids, keys, languages, and values'), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 deliver the core action, the matching mechanism, and the result format with no filler. The primary operation is front-loaded, and every phrase 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?

Given the simple three-parameter shape, high schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description conveys enough to correctly select the tool and understand its return nature. Minor gaps like pagination or case-sensitivity are acceptable because 'bounded' already signals a limited preview.

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%, and the schema already explains the query and project parameters. The description reinforces that query matches both keys and values, but it does not meaningfully clarify the optional language parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the structured schema carries the semantic weight.

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 operation ('Search translation phrases'), the targeted resource ('for a MultiLocale project'), and the matching mechanism ('query string against phrase keys and values'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_phrases by emphasizing query-based matching and the returned preview content.

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 this tool is for query-based search within a project, which contrasts with list_phrases or get_phrase, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over those alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is inferable but not made explicit.

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