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

Discloses blocking behavior (waits up to wait_seconds), completion criteria, and that download links expire in 24 hours. Annotations already say readOnlyHint=true; description adds timeout and link validity context beyond 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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key behavioral trait (waiting). Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description notes completed documents include download links but doesn't describe the response format for pending/failed states. Still, for a status-checking tool with annotations covering idempotence, it is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains document_id implicitly by referencing documents from translate_document and explains wait_seconds as the wait limit. Lacks explicit details like default wait behavior, but the core semantics are conveyed.

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?

Description clearly identifies the resource (document status), the action (get), and ties it to translate_document. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like translate_document and translate_text by focusing on status retrieval.

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?

States it is for documents started with translate_document, implying when to use it. Could be stronger on when not to use it (e.g., for text translation status use translate_text), but the context is clear.

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