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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It exceeds this by revealing source auto-detection, return format (JSON with detected source + translation), cost ($0.01), payment source (clink's shop credits), and the free call policy for failures. This is comprehensive and honest, with no contradictions.

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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, constraints, output, cost, and payment. It front-loads the core function and provides essential operational details without redundancy. It could be slightly tighter, but each sentence earns its place by conveying necessary information for correct invocation.

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 translation tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers input limits, optional vs required params, return format, cost, and error handling (free on failure). An agent has all necessary information to decide whether and how to call this tool, including payment prerequisites. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value beyond the schema: it specifies the character limit, clarifies that source_lang is optional and auto-detected when omitted, and gives example target language formats ('English', 'es'). This enhances the agent's understanding of parameter usage and practical constraints.

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 explicitly states the tool translates text, with a clear resource ('text') and verb ('translate'), and includes constraints (2,000 chars, any language pair, auto-detection). It is unambiguously distinct from all sibling tools, which are market/agent tools with no translation overlap.

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 communicates when to use the tool (for any translation need) and provides practical usage context: length limit, cost per call, and how to obtain credits via buy_credits. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, none of the sibling tools offer translation, so uniqueness is implicit. It could have stated 'use this for translation' more directly, but the intent is clear.

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