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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a concrete credit formula, a 3000-char ceiling, and glossary pinning as a translation behavior. No contradictions with the 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?

Two tight sentences with the capability, default, and limits front-loaded, followed by bracketed metadata. Minor redundancy between 'Credits: 15 + ceil(chars/40)' and '[Cost: 16 credits (Tier 1)]', but overall efficient.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. Cost, limits, and the source default round out the picture; only the unexplained 'domain' parameter and the language-count mismatch keep it from being fully complete.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate; it clarifies the source_lang default and the text length cap, which helps. However, the 'domain' parameter is never mentioned anywhere, and the stated '21 languages' does not match the 20-value enums for source_lang/target_lang, leaving ambiguity.

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 ('Translate one text') and adds domain-scoping ('astrology-domain glossary pinning'), which is more than a restatement of the title. 'One text' implicitly separates it from astroway_content_localization_translate_batch, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a useful default rule ('Source defaults to English; pass source_lang to override'), but never says when to choose this over translate_batch (multiple texts) or translate_glossary_lang (glossary management). Usage is implied by 'one text' rather than stated.

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