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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-domain lookup. Beyond that, the description only adds that 9 languages exist; it does not say what happens when a key is not found, whether matching is case-sensitive, or what the return value looks like. Useful but thin on behavior 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, with no filler. Minor deduction because the Chinese and English sentences restate the same content rather than the second sentence adding information such as fallback behavior.

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 2-parameter lookup with no output schema, the definition covers what to pass but not what comes back (single string vs. structured label) or how misses are handled. These are the details an agent would most want before invoking a translation tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well on `key`, clarifying that it is a raw internal key or UI string and giving examples. It adds nothing about `lang` beyond 'any official language' — no mention of accepted codes or that the default is English — leaving half the parameter space covered only by the enum.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair: looking up the official localized label for a raw game key, across 9 languages. It gives concrete example keys (Weapon, Weakness, PhysicalAttack, 宝箱), which makes the domain unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_entity or search_ffrs, so it falls short of 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 Chinese sentence states a clear triggering condition: call this when you need to translate an internal game key or UI string into an official language. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer get_entity for entity metadata instead), so the guidance is clear but not routing-complete.

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