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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: the response envelope shape, the fact that cursor is always null because language sets are bounded, and the stats breakdown. It does not discuss auth or errors, but adds real operational context.

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 front-loaded sentences: purpose, return shape, then usage. No filler; each sentence adds information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the envelope contract and the always-null cursor caveat, and pairs it with a routing instruction to translationDraft_get. For a single-param list tool this is complete.

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?

One required param (formId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It scopes the result to 'a form' which implies formId's meaning, but never documents the parameter's expected format or source. Adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the languages a form has translation rows for') plus the returned per-language payload (completion stats). This is clearly distinct from the translationDraft_* siblings, which read/write actual draft content rather than enumerate languages.

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 sequencing guidance: 'Use before translationDraft_get to know which languages to read,' naming the sibling it precedes. It does not state when NOT to use it or contrast with translationLanguage_delete, but the forward-routing is clear and actionable.

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