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.