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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral context is the plan-tier requirement, which is helpful, but it says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering for a list operation.

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: the core action and scope come first, then the access requirement. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or schema fields.

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 no explanation, and annotations plus the single documented parameter cover the rest. The description is nearly complete; the only minor omission is any hint about ordering, pagination, or volume of locales returned.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents courseId ('Id of the course the translation belongs to'). The description adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Lists every locale translated') and scopes it to a course, so the agent knows this returns all locales rather than a single one. It does not explicitly name how it differs from get_translation or create_translation, but the 'every locale' phrasing implies a collection read, which is reasonably distinguishable from siblings.

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 supplies the prerequisite 'Requires the Build plan or higher', which is genuinely useful gating information an agent cannot infer elsewhere. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_translation for a single locale or list_* alternatives, so usage is only implied.

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