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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral detail – fuzzy matching scored 0-100 and the important gotcha that min_score default 0 returns all results – but it never states that the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, or whether output is paginated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by usage and a compact Args block; no filler. The Args block repeats some defaults present in the schema, which is mild redundancy but aids usability at call time.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and all five parameters are documented. What is missing is modest: result ordering/pagination and an explicit statement that this is a non-mutating lookup, which would matter more given the absence of annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains each of the five parameters, restates defaults (source 'en', limit 10, min_score 0), defines the score range and its default semantics. Only the exact matching behavior of 'query' (substring vs fuzzy) remains unspecified.

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?

Specific verb 'search' plus resource 'translation memory' with the object being searched (existing translations). It is clearly a query tool, though it never names the sibling it is distinct from, such as list_translation_memory_entries or get_translation_memory_stats, so the agent must infer the boundary between searching and listing.

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 two concrete situations to reach for this tool: checking for existing translations before creating new ones and finding reference translations for consistency. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it (e.g. full listing or stats), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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