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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses that the tool shows an interactive widget (not plain text), filters out rows without usable slugs, and returns language_name values as display labels. It also emphasizes this is the final tool call for these requests.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the default-tool classification, then covers usage alternatives, parameter format, output format, and data filtering. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description is fully complete for the tool's complexity: it covers usage context, alternatives, output behavior, and parameter nuances. With an output schema present and good annotations, the description adds all necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 already documents both parameters with descriptions. The description adds the explicit instruction to use ISO 639-1 codes like 'en' rather than names like 'english', reinforcing the language param format beyond 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?

The description clearly states this is the 'DEFAULT tool for user-facing translation-listing questions' with concrete examples ('what English translations are available', 'list French translations'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from lookup_translations and describes the interactive widget output, giving a specific verb+resource+scope.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('ANY user-facing query') and when-not-to-use conditions: only use lookup_translations for plain text/raw data or piping into ayah_translation without showing the list. Also instructs to use ISO 639-1 codes and not follow this call with lookup_translations.

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