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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses pagination behavior (cursor chaining), the return shape, and a significant cross-project semantic: the memory may be shared and deleting an entry removes it for every attached project. It also warns that ids are for tool calls only and must not be shown to users – non-obvious operational context that 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?

The core purpose and filtering are front-loaded in the first two sentences and are efficient. The final sentence about presenting names/locales rather than ids is useful but reads as a tangential user-facing convention rather than tool-selection guidance, slightly diluting focus.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, yet it summarises them briefly and covers pagination, shared-memory scope, and the delete follow-up. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely 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% and the schema already documents q as case-insensitive substring, locale matching behaviour, and defaults. The description broadly restates the filter semantics ('case-insensitive substring of the source or translated text, and/or by source and target locale') without adding new syntax or edge-case guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (search the project's translation memory), defines what the memory actually is (stored source→translation pairs reused by future jobs), and names the sibling tool it feeds into (delete_translation_memory_entries). An agent can distinguish it from list_glossary or list_style_guides without opening a schema.

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?

It gives an explicit use case (find faulty entries, then pass ids to delete_translation_memory_entries), names the alternative tool, and states filtering options. Routing and intent are unambiguous.

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