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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about default ordering, whether disabled entries are included by default, permission requirements, or result-size limits. Only pagination is acknowledged, and that is already evident from the limit/offset parameters.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing extraneous is present, though the sparseness is a coverage problem rather than a wording problem.

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 seven-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations, this description is too thin; it never explains how the filters combine or what the default listing includes. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but not from explaining inputs.

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 0% across seven parameters, and the description does not explain any of them. The filters that most affect results (search, enabled_only, information_source, source/target language codes) get no semantics at all beyond their bare titles.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (list and paginate translation memory entries) and adds a concrete downstream benefit ('including IDs for editing'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_translation_memory, so an agent must still infer which listing route applies.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'including IDs for editing' suggests a fetch-then-update workflow with update_translation_memory_entry. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_translation_memory or get_translation_memory_stats, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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