iSomor

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: asynchronous execution, cost/credit implication, mandatory user approval, idempotency retry behavior, and the fact that disconnecting does not cancel the job. These are not captured by the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations and add real value for the agent. No 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core purpose, the approval/retry guidance, and the disconnection caveat. No filler, and the most critical information (submission + credits) is front-loaded. Efficient and well-structured.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, the description omits critical operational details: what the tool returns (e.g., job ID), how to track progress, the exact meaning of confirmed=true, and how parameters like pages and output_formats behave. It also doesn't point to sibling tools like get_translation_results for status checking. The description covers usage guidelines well but leaves agents guessing about invocation and result handling.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any parameter meaning. It mentions idempotency_key generically but doesn't clarify required fields like file_id, target_language, or the confirmed boolean, nor optional ones like pages or output_formats. The description adds no parameter-level detail, leaving agents to infer from names alone.

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 (submit an asynchronous PDF translation) and the resource, and notes it uses the user's website credits. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like estimate_translation (estimation) and the various get_* retrieval tools, so an agent can identify its role immediately.

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 instructs to ask for user approval after showing estimated cost, implying a prerequisite step (likely estimate_translation). It also advises reusing the same idempotency_key and parameters after a timeout, which is a clear retry guideline. It doesn't name alternatives directly but provides sufficient contextual direction.

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

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

The annotations only provide idempotentHint=true; the description adds a concrete behavioral fact by stating it validates ownership and does not reserve credits. This goes beyond the annotations, though validation failure modes and any other side effects are not covered.

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 main purpose and no filler. The non-reservation caveat is concise and behaviorally important.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description gives useful workflow and side-effect context, but leaves parameter semantics and return details largely to inference. It is adequate for a lightweight preflight action, but not fully complete.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It mentions an 'owned PDF' but never maps this to file_id, and it says nothing about target_language, pages, output_formats, or source_language.

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 action pair (validate/estimate), a precise resource (an owned PDF), and the purpose (page credits before approval). It also clearly distinguishes itself from create_translation by stating it does not reserve credits.

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?

It gives a clear workflow position: use this before asking the user to approve translation. 'Does not reserve credits' also signals this is a no-commitment estimation step, though it does not explicitly name create_translation as the alternative for actually creating the translation.

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

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not contradict them. The description adds that the tool returns capability categories, but it does not disclose additional behavioral context such as whether results are cached, static, or dependent on account state.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 zero-parameter, read-only capability query, the description covers what the tool returns and the annotations cover the safety profile. The only minor gap is that 'limits' is somewhat ambiguous relative to the sibling get_quota, but this is unlikely to block correct use.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter information for the description to supplement. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a concrete resource ('supported PDF languages, output formats and limits'), making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_quota, which could also relate to limits.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to know supported languages, output formats, or limits. It provides no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the usage situation from the verb and resource.

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

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

The description presents the tool as a pure read operation ('Read... Does not grant an extra MCP allowance'), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This directly conflicts with the description's implied read-only behavior. The caveat about not granting allowance is useful, but the contradiction is a serious transparency failure.

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 with no filler. The first states the core operation and target resource; the second adds a meaningful caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema quota lookup, the description is sufficient. It identifies the resource, the nature of the operation, and the key limitation (no extra allowance granted). An agent can correctly decide to invoke it without additional explanation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds adequate context about what resource is being queried.

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 ('Read') and names the exact resource ('account's available page credits shared with the iSomor website'). It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('Does not grant an extra MCP allowance'), which helps an agent distinguish it from any allowance/granting tool.

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 gives clear context for when to call the tool: whenever the account's page-credit quota needs to be checked. It also includes a when-not cue by stating that the call does not grant extra allowance, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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

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

The description says 'Read', which implies a read-only operation, but the annotation readOnlyHint=false indicates the tool is not read-only. This is an annotation contradiction. The 5-second polling note is useful, but the conflicting read-only signal is disqualifying. IdempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false do not resolve the 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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose first and the rate limit second. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 simple 1-parameter status poll, the description covers the resource and polling cadence, but the contradiction between 'Read' and readOnlyHint=false leaves the operation's side-effect profile unclear. With no output schema and no pointer to get_translation_results, an agent lacks enough context to fully interpret responses or choose the right sibling.

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% and the description never explains job_id, though the phrase 'translation's status' implies it identifies a translation job. The name and context provide partial meaning, but ownership semantics, valid values, and error behavior are left unspecified.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('an owned translation's status'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling get_translation_results by focusing on status rather than translated output.

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 'Poll no faster than every 5 seconds' instruction gives concrete cadence guidance, so an agent knows this is the polling endpoint and how often to call it. However, it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions, e.g., when to switch to get_translation_results for actual output.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: the URLs are temporary and private, and they should only be shared with the user and not passed to other tools without permission. No contradiction with 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, both purposeful. The main function is front-loaded, and the security caveat is a necessary addition. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description is largely sufficient: it states the output type (temporary private URLs), the precondition (successful owned translation), and an important sharing restriction. There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for return semantics, but the concept is clear enough; minor details like exact URL format or expiration behavior are not critical for invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter, job_id, and the schema provides its type and length constraints. The description implicitly links the parameter to a 'successful owned translation' but does not explicitly explain that job_id is the identifier of that translation or how to obtain it. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 clearly states the action ('Get temporary private download URLs') and the resource ('a successful owned translation'), so an agent knows what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_translation, though the focus on download URLs makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 phrase 'for a successful owned translation' implies when this tool is appropriate, and the privacy instruction gives handling guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_translation or list_files, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral limits: only 20 results, only PDFs, only visible files, and uploads scoped to the authorized account. The warning that filenames are untrusted data is a meaningful behavioral/security disclosure 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 deliver the core behavior, scope constraints, and a security note with no filler. The key filtering information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description covers the main facts the agent needs: what is listed, the limit, visibility/type constraints, account scope, and a security caveat. It does not specify the output format, but with no output schema and a simple list operation this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 tool has no parameters and an empty schema, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing: no invocation arguments are needed.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('visible PDFs uploaded by the authorized account'), and a concrete constraint ('latest 20'). It clearly differentiates this tool from the translation-focused siblings by identifying the file-listing domain.

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 implies this is the tool to use when needing the most recent visible PDFs, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The sibling tools are different enough that ambiguity is low, yet explicit usage guidance is absent.

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