Lingoris — traduction assermentée

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (step, delivery date, link) and the constraint that downloads are not performed here. This goes beyond the annotation's simple read-only flag, giving the agent a clear behavioral model. No contradiction found.

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 zero fluff. The first sentence states purpose and inputs, the second lists outputs and a critical limitation. The most important information (order status retrieval) is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema). The description adequately covers what it returns (step, delivery date, tracking link) and the download limitation. Without an output schema, the description does not specify the exact response structure, but listing the fields gives the agent a reasonable expectation. It could mention error handling or required order existence, but these are minor gaps for a read-only lookup tool.

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%: both parameters have descriptive text ('Email utilisé pour la commande' and format example). The description repeats the format (LG-XXXX-XXXXX) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't elaborate on validation, edge cases, or parameter interdependencies, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb ('get status') and resource (Lingoris order), and lists the exact outputs (current step, estimated delivery, tracking link). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings (price estimate, languages) by focusing on order tracking. The additional note that downloads happen only on lingoris.fr clarifies what the tool does not do, removing ambiguity.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to check order status) and explicitly states when not to use it (for downloading translations, which requires lingoris.fr). However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when-not' scenarios beyond the download case. Since siblings are unrelated, this is adequate context without exclusions.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, aligning with the description's nature as a read-only quote generator. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the price is fixed, includes French VAT, and is based solely on the three input factors, with an explicit note that the page count is provisional until upload. No contradiction with 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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the pricing model, page definition, VAT, and pricing independence. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy, achieving high information density without unnecessary 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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the price includes, how pages are measured, and that it is a definitive quote for the given inputs. It could potentially specify the currency (implied by TTC and France), but this is minor; the description is otherwise complete for correct 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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by defining that one tariff page equals 250 words, clarifying that the price holds for the indicated page count, and confirming that no degressive pricing applies. This goes beyond the schema's bare definitions and helps an agent interpret parameters correctly.

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 specifies a fixed-price quote for a certified translation, enumerating the inputs (language pair, page count, deadline) and clarifying the pricing logic (per-page definition, VAT inclusion, no discounts). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (order status, language list) by stating its exact purpose.

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 implicitly defines when to use this tool (to obtain a price for a given language pair, pages, and urgency). It explains that the final page count is determined at upload, so the estimate is based on the specified page count. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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?

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already communicate that this is a safe, read-only operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context about prices being indicative and including tax (TTC), but does not disclose operational behavior such as pagination, rate limits, or response structure beyond what the schema already implies.

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 compact and front-loaded: it names the resource, its scope (100+ languages), the key returned data (base price per page, dedicated page), and the available filters. Every clause contributes useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only 4-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the main content returned (languages, prices, pages) and the filtering dimensions. It does not mention the limit parameter or explain how the result set is ordered or paginated, but the schema already exposes limit and the use case is otherwise well specified.

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 75%, so most parameters are already described. The description reinforces the meaning of search, region, and tier filtering by saying the catalogue is 'filterable by search, region, or price range', but it adds no additional meaning for the limit parameter, which remains undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 identifies a specific resource: a catalogue of Lingoris sworn translation languages (100+ languages and variants), including base price per page and dedicated page. It distinguishes itself from the price-estimate and order-status siblings by focusing on enumerating languages rather than computing quotes or tracking orders.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs a filterable list of languages with indicative prices. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with get_price_estimate or state when a price estimate tool should be preferred instead, leaving some routing to inference.

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