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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the merge/precedence rule that 'a presentation's own entries go over its project's'. That override semantics is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Dense but earns its space: the sample entry format conveys the return shape compactly, and the precedence rule is stated in a single closing clause. Front-loading is slightly weak because the opening sentence is the awkward 'How the machine translator translates...' rather than a plain statement of the operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still sketches the entry format. With both parameters fully covered in the schema, the only real gap is guidance on when to use this versus set_glossary.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description earns a point by tying the two parameters to their real meaning — slug for a single presentation versus project for all its presentations — and adding the precedence rule between them.

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 title ('Read the glossary of the translation') supplies the verb and resource, and the description explains exactly what a glossary contains, including a concrete JSON example. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this read tool from the sibling set_glossary, so the agent must infer the read/write split from names alone.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives (notably set_glossary). The slug-vs-project choice is described only inside the schema, not in the description, so the description itself offers no usage guidance.

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