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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: no geocoder or web search, coordinates rejected, exact lookup against a finite table of 56 boards restricted to CA/FL/HI, structured refusal behavior, and that nothing is recorded. The only minor tension is openWorldHint=true versus a bounded internal place table, but names themselves come from an open set, so this is not a contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose before the failure modes, and every sentence carries behavioral information. Slight redundancy: the closing 'Read-only: the call itself records nothing' partly restates readOnlyHint, and the parenthetical examples add length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still maps the outcome space (board + matched token, candidates, outside_coverage, unknown) so the agent knows how to branch. Coverage limits and input constraints are fully specified for a single-parameter lookup 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already supplies the accepted name formats, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuinely useful exclusion not in the schema — 'Coordinates are not accepted' — which prevents an agent from passing lat/long to the single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (translate/resolve) and resource (place name → region handle) and immediately positions itself as the prerequisite for every other tool. An agent can tell it apart from search_showtimes or theater_info without reading any schema.

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?

Explicitly says the output is 'the region handle every other tool takes', which tells the agent to call this first. It also defines the failure routing in detail: ambiguity returns candidates, out-of-board places return outside_coverage (with nearby published board), and unplaceable names return unknown. Nothing is left to inference.

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