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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'all languages' (scope) and includes IDs, but does not detail the response structure, ordering, or any potential limitations. While adequate for such a simple tool, it adds limited behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary function, and provides usage context in the second sentence. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 reference-list tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It states what is returned (all languages with IDs) and how to use the result (search_brokers languageIds), which fully addresses the agent's needs given the lack of parameters and output schema.

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 are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed, which is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('all languages with their IDs'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on search or contact operations, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool ('Call this when you need to discover which language IDs to use') and how the output integrates with another tool ('Use these IDs in search_brokers (languageIds)'). This provides strong usage guidance and alternative context.

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