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.