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.