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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe read. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses the error condition ('Returns an error if that language version does not exist yet') and the precondition. It also reveals what is disclosed via the fields listing. It does not describe response format, but an output schema exists, so the need is minimal.

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?

Three short sentences cover purpose, workflow usage, and error condition with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded; the workflow guidance and precondition follow logically. No sentence is wasted.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, 100% schema coverage, output schema present), the description covers everything an agent needs: what it reads, how it should be used in the translate workflow, and what happens when the language version is missing. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, with both formId and language fully documented. The description adds context by explaining that 'language' selects a 'language version (translation)' and that codes must remain identical to the source form, but it does not go deep on what formId's value means beyond the source form's UUID. Baseline 3 is appropriate on schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Read the full content of one language version (translation) of a form,' and names the exact scope ('mirrored fields[] and report'). This cleanly separates it from the base get_form and from the other translation tools by specifying that it targets a language-specific variant.

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 explicitly embeds the tool in a workflow: 'Use the content to populate an onboarding request the current draft before translating ... then save with update_form_translation.' It also tells the agent when NOT to call it - if the translation doesn't exist, create it first. This is ideal guidance without any additional effort.

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