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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the per-call cost (about 173 credits) and the deliberate policy of keeping financial aid terms untranslated. It also states 'Read-only' in prose and explains the family-facing rationale behind the terminology behavior.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose and key behavioral constraints, with the cost line separated for scannability. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 two-parameter translate tool with complete schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description supplies the essential context: input origin, target audience, terminology policy, and cost. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but that is strongly implied by the tool's name and purpose, so there is no meaningful invocation gap.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents sourceText and targetLang; the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It adds light semantic framing by describing sourceText as counselor-facing output, but no new syntax or format information.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Translate counselor-facing output into a family's language.' It further clarifies scope by explaining that FAFSA, Pell, SAI, COA, and loan names intentionally stay untranslated, which distinguishes this behavior from generic translation tools.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when converting counselor-facing text into a family's language, with the schema adding that sourceText is usually another tool's output. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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