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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: per-item and total size ceilings (2000/20000 chars), the credit formula, and the rule that all items must share one target language and domain.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense with the limits and pricing an agent needs. The trailing metadata block repeats information already in the schema ('Required: items, target_lang') and gives a flat '16 credits' figure that loosely duplicates the formula, but it stays short and scannable.

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 the cost/size limits are present. Missing for a batch operation: what happens on per-item failure, whether domain defaults, and how this tool relates to its translation siblings.

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 only 33% (fields and precision), so the description carries partial burden. It clarifies items limits and the shared target_lang/domain constraint, which is meaningful, but says nothing about source_lang (auto-detect?) and leaves precision/fields entirely to the schema.

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 up to 25 strings') plus hard scope limits, so the batch nature is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling translate tools (translate_astro, translate_glossary_lang, translate_languages), which an agent must infer on its own.

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 constraints ('sharing one target language + domain') hint at the intended input shape but the description never says when to pick this tool over the sibling translation tools or when to fall back to a single-string call. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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