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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds valuable transparency about return content, ambiguity handling, outside_coverage responses, and the lack of a fallback board for unknown strings.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by behavioral details. The use of 'WHAT' in capitals and the em-dash structure are slightly stylized but do not hurt clarity or add unnecessary 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to spell out every return field. It clearly explains the main output (board and matched input) and the three edge-case response modes, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 single required parameter `place` is fully described in the schema with concrete examples of valid inputs: city names, ZIP codes, neighborhoods, and aliases. The description also clarifies what is not accepted, making the parameter semantics unambiguous.

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 action (Translate) and resource (city, ZIP, neighborhood, board alias) into the region handle used by other tools. The scope is clear and distinguishes it from the sibling tools that operate on films, theaters, and showtimes.

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?

Implicitly tells when to use the tool by clarifying it reads names, not locations, and by describing refusal behavior for ambiguous or unknown input. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope is reasonably clear from the context.

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