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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds that it inspects the live site and that a zero word count requires a browser visit to preview_url, but it does not describe the return shape or how the check is performed.

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 sentences with no filler, and the primary check is front-loaded. The first sentence is phrased as a question rather than a direct statement, which is slightly less directive but still efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey return values; it mentions words_translated and implies a tag-presence result, but does not describe the full response or preview_url sourcing. The prerequisite about a browser visit is helpful but leaves gaps for acting on the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single agent_token parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the token or its format beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description states specific checks: whether the Proxylang tag is on the live site and whether words have been translated. It does not differentiate this from the sibling proxylang_status, which likely overlaps, and the question phrasing is slightly indirect rather than a clear verb+resource statement.

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 conditional prerequisite: if words_translated is 0, a real browser visit to preview_url is needed first. However, it never states when to call this tool versus proxylang_status or proxylang_next, so usage must be inferred.

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