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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the created translation starts empty, and a plan-tier requirement gates the call. It stops short of stating the failure mode when a duplicate locale is requested.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the creation semantics come first and the prerequisite second. Every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations plus a fully documented two-param schema cover the rest. The plan requirement and empty-initial-state note round it out; only the duplicate-locale failure behavior is left unstated.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the one-translation-per-locale constraint. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (starts/creates) and resource (a new locale translation for a course), and adds the clarifying detail that it begins empty. It is clearly distinguishable from update_translation and delete_translation by the 'new (initially empty)' framing, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite ('Requires the Build plan or higher') that helps an agent decide feasibility, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus update_translation, or what to do if the locale already exists. Usage is implied by the create semantics rather than stated.

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