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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that fact – nothing about job queuing, latency, cost, or how to follow up on the created job.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and scope with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 mutation tool with nested object parameters, two required fields, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description should explain at least minimal input expectations and the async nature of job creation. As written it leaves the agent to guess how to supply source_app and screenshots.

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 25% and the description explains none of the four parameters. It never mentions limit (capped at 10), the source_app object's name/query/app_id/app_url/country fields, or source_screenshot_urls, leaving most inputs documented only by bare property names.

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 (Create) and resource (MagicScreenshots localization jobs) along with the input (source App Store screenshots) and target (one or more locales). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools such as create_restyle.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. which source_app forms are accepted, whether a screenshot URL is required), and no reference to the sibling create_restyle or approval flow. The agent must infer its place in the workflow.

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