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

With annotations only indicating readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses that translation runs asynchronously, that the call returns immediately with { jobId, status }, and that the agent must poll get_translation until a terminal status. This is genuinely valuable beyond what annotations provide.

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 longer than average, but nearly every sentence earns its place: the supported formats list is dense, the default behavior is explicit, and the async polling instructions are essential. The key facts are front-loaded and the follow-up flow is clearly separated.

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?

Given an output schema exists and three well-documented parameters, the description is complete: it covers input formats, parameter defaults, return shape, asynchronous behavior, and the full follow-up flow via get_translation. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret what happens next.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful call semantics beyond the schema, especially the note that files are parsed by content rather than name, so the literal file content should be passed as-is. It also clarifies the targetLanguages parameter as a subset that defaults to all project targets.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit one or more source files to be translated as a single job.' It clearly distinguishes the submission action from the polling tool get_translation, and the detailed format list removes ambiguity about what kinds of files are accepted.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: pass files as-is, target languages default to project targets, and results are fetched via get_translation. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the async workflow is spelled out well enough that an agent knows exactly when and how to follow up.

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