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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is text-only, renders no widget, and is intended as a preparatory/internal step. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the output mode and its non-interactive nature.

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?

The description is dense but organized: it leads with the core nature, follows with an explicit prohibition, then conditions, and ends with a format note. Every sentence adds distinct information. It is longer than strictly necessary but not padded, and the structure aids comprehension.

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?

Given that the tool has no output schema and only two optional params, the description effectively covers the essential context: when to use it, its output mode (text-only, no widget), and the expected purpose (e.g., resolving a slug for ayah_translation). It does not enumerate the exact fields returned, but for an internal preparatory tool this is sufficient.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including the ISO 639-1 language code filter and the prohibition on names. The description's language guidance ('Use ISO 639-1 codes like 'en', not names') is redundant with the schema. No additional parametric meaning is added, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is an 'INTERNAL/preparatory tool — text-only, no widget rendered' and explicitly contrasts it with list_translations. The verb 'browse' combined with 'data only' and the tangible example of chaining to ayah_translation give a concrete sense of purpose.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'NEVER use as the user-facing answer... use list_translations' and 'Use this ONLY when EITHER (a) ... OR (b) ...'. It also adds a preference rule 'When in doubt, prefer list_translations' and a format requirement for language codes.

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