Translation by park13

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds genuine beyond-annotation context: nothing is charged until the user pays, charging only occurs when the certificate is issued, the agent cannot review/consent/pay, and the returned token is private.

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 tight sentences; the hand-off constraint and the no-charge guarantee are front-loaded, and every clause carries actionable meaning with no filler.

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, and the description compensates by naming the key return values (approvalUrl, private token) and the charge timing. It could say more about the order lifecycle or what the token grants, but it covers what an agent needs to invoke and route the result correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents files, names, locale, and receiving_procedure thoroughly. The description adds nothing about individual parameters—its return-value detail (approvalUrl, token) is not parameter semantics—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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prepares an order for your user to approve and pay') and immediately distinguishes the outcome (approval flow, not immediate charge). An agent can tell it apart from quote_document and get_order_status.

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?

Makes clear the agent cannot pay or approve and must hand off approvalUrl to the user, and it names get_order_status as the follow-up consumer of the private token. It does not explicitly contrast with quote_document (e.g., quote first vs. order), so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral value by disclosing what the response contains and that download links appear only 'once completed', implying state-dependent output. It says nothing about invalid/expired tokens, error behavior, or whether the order must be polled repeatedly.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the most important element (the order's status) is front-loaded. It is slightly awkward as an incomplete noun phrase, but every clause conveys real information about the return value.

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 only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description's job is to convey what comes back, and it does so concretely (status, next step, certificate number, links). Gaps remain around failure modes and whether repeated polling is expected, but for a simple read tool this is largely sufficient.

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 (token, order_id) are documented as coming from create_order. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema carries all parameter semantics.

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 names a specific resource (an order's status) and enumerates the payload: status, next step, certificate number, and download links. It is unambiguous what the tool returns, but it never differentiates itself from siblings like create_order or get_service_info, and it phrases the purpose as a noun fragment rather than a 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites beyond what the schema already says, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that it should call this after create_order and to poll for completion, which the description never states.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail that the fields are static reference data with prices quoted in yen including tax, which prevents currency/tax misinterpretation, but it says nothing about staleness, caching, or whether values are guaranteed current.

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?

A single compact sentence listing the covered topics, front-loaded with the primary subject (what the service translates). It is efficient, though the comma-separated enumeration is dense and could be split so the highest-value facts (prices, limits) lead.

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 zero-parameter read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the returned subject areas. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around whether the information is versioned or region-specific.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends its words on what is returned rather than on nonexistent inputs, which is the right allocation for a parameterless tool.

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 enumerates the exact content the tool returns (translation coverage, accepted files, limits, prices, delivery times, ordering/payment flow), which effectively defines the resource and separates it from siblings like create_order or quote_document. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'describes'), so it reads as a content list rather than a stated action.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternatives, but the enumerated content implies the use case: consult this before ordering or quoting for pricing, limits and file requirements. The agent must infer that this is the entry-point/reference tool rather than being told.

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

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain content about what the guides include, but it does not describe return structure, coverage limits, or whether the list is static or dynamically assembled.

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 a single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the resource domain. The examples and the content summary both add useful selection context without noticeable filler.

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 low-complexity, no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers the domain and content sufficiently. It could be slightly more explicit about what is returned as a list, but the annotations and empty schema carry most remaining burden.

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?

The tool has zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 identifies a specific resource: guides to Japanese procedures requiring translated English documents, with concrete examples and stated content. The name supplies the 'list' verb, so the agent can tell this is a guide-listing tool, though the description itself could more explicitly say it returns a collection.

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 examples imply when the tool is useful, such as for tax deductions, marriage registration, or birth registration involving translated documents. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds genuinely new guarantees that matter here — nothing is stored and nothing is charged. It also names the screening criteria (format, pages, words, scanned pages). It stops short of saying whether repeat calls are rate-limited or whether results are cached.

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, zero waste, with the most decision-relevant fact (free, no charge) front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing 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 no output schema, the description correctly states what comes back: a price or the reason it can't be processed. That covers the main return contract; the shape of the price response (currency, breakdown) is left implicit but not essential for invocation.

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%, including the max-5-images/10 MB constraints and base64 encoding, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of formats and pages loosely mirrors the schema but adds no format syntax or size detail beyond it.

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+resource: screens a file and returns a price or a rejection reason. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with create_order, the obvious next step in the sibling set.

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?

"Free price check" implies this is the pre-purchase step before create_order, but the description never says so outright and offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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