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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds real value by disclosing the fuzzy-resolution behavior: it accepts informal names, aliases, dialects, countries/demonyms and codes, and returns the 'best matches' rather than a single exact hit. That ranked-multi-match behavior is not derivable from the annotations and materially shapes how an agent should consume the result.

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 compact sentences with the resolution scope front-loaded. Minor waste in re-listing the same example strings already present in the schema's query description, and the first sentence is a fragment, but there is no padding.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the input surface well. It stops short of stating what happens on zero matches or how ranked matches should be disambiguated, which for a fuzzy-resolution tool would be the last useful detail.

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 both query and limit are already documented with examples and bounds. The description largely restates the same example strings and adds only the 'including sign languages' nuance, 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 identifies the resource (a language name) and the output (Remoto's language code), with the scope explicitly widened to sign languages. The opening clause is a sentence fragment rather than a clean verb+resource statement, but an agent can still tell this is a name-to-code lookup and distinguish it from siblings like check_language_pair or find_interpreters.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has a free-text language string and needs a canonical code. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of check_language_pair, the obvious sibling an agent might confuse this with when validating a pair of languages.

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