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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the response is a multi-phase procedure that must be executed in order before any code edits. It stops short of describing the guide's size or structure, which is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and followed by the trigger conditions and sequencing rule. Every clause (Lingui, Globalize, phase-by-phase) carries actionable information; nothing is redundant.

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 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, and how to act on the result. No relevant decision information 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to obtain the guide.

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 deliverable: step-by-step instructions for adding i18n/localization to a Lovable app using Lingui and Globalize. It is clearly distinguishable from action siblings like translate_files or add_project_language because it produces a guide rather than performing a mutation.

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 an explicit ordering rule ('Call this FIRST, before editing any code') and enumerates the user intents that should trigger it (translate the app, add languages, internationalize, localize, set up Globalize). It also tells the agent what to do after the call — follow the returned instructions phase by phase.

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