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

Annotations only declare read-only, idempotent, open-world; the description adds substantive context they cannot express: which model handles each direction, that Indic-to-Indic pivots through English, per-call/daily/minute quotas, and that text is sent to an external server (mcp.bhasini.com) but not stored. Language-to-language pivoting is disclosed, so the remaining gap is minor (no mention of how detection failures surface).

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with what it does before quotas and the sibling routing. Each sentence carries information, though the quota sentence crams three separate limits together and could be split for scanability.

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?

Covers everything needed to call it correctly without an output schema: direction handling, valid languages, size limits, external-server behavior and data retention, plus alternatives. No output schema means return value is implied by the example, which is adequate for a text-in/text-out tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by defining the language universe for targetLanguage (22 scheduled languages or 'en'), pointing to list_languages for valid codes, and stating the 2,000-character ceiling on text; it does not explain how 'auto' detection resolves 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 plus precise scope: translation between English and the 22 scheduled Indian languages, or Indic-to-Indic, with a concrete input/output example. This is far more specific than the name alone and cleanly delimits it from script conversion tools.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from a sibling: for romanised spelling by sound, use transliterate instead. It also tells the caller to get target codes from list_languages, and gives an operational ceiling (2,000 chars/call) that determines when to split work.

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