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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the bounded scope of 475 languages and search-by-name-or-code behavior, but it does not describe matching semantics, result ordering, or return shape. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core search scope is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema or nested objects, the description provides the essential contract: supported languages, searchable by name or code, with omission behavior covered by the schema. Minor details like result format and ordering are not critical at this level of complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single optional query parameter is already documented as 'Part of a language name or code; omit to list the first 100.' The tool description restates the name/code concept but adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema.

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 specifies a concrete search action over a well-defined resource: 'Search the 475 supported languages by name or code.' It is clearly distinct from sibling tools focused on credit, documents, and translation, so an agent can understand exactly what this tool does.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The intended use can be inferred from the context of translation-related siblings, but the description itself leaves that inference to the agent.

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