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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the four status buckets and their meanings, that every update write lands and stays in 'suggested' after publish, and the email.* key lifecycle (appears only once customized, independent of publish state). This is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured as a status list plus targeted notes on email keys. It is long, but each paragraph carries distinct behavioral facts (status semantics, email key rules, selfNotification exclusion) rather than padding, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, so the description must explain both the return shape (keys with status, JSON-stringified Descendant[]) and the key naming scheme (block_<id>.*, email.confirmation.*, email.reminder.*). It does exactly that, leaving no gap an agent needs to call and interpret this tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It defines all four status enum values in detail and explains the filtering intent, which is the semantically hardest parameter. formId and language are left to their schema types/patterns, but the most important ambiguity is resolved richly.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Read the resolved translation draft for one (form, language) pair.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling translationDraft_update and translationDraft_publish by describing a read of resolved state, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicit conditional usage ('Pass status to filter to one bucket — useful for "show me all missing" prompts') and a when-not with alternative ('Self-notification emails ... author them directly ... via formSettings_update rather than looking for them here'). It also warns against a misuse path (never overwrite source via formSettings_update).

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