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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, repeat-sensitive call; the description adds async-job semantics via the polling instruction, which is useful. It does not disclose that repeat calls may create duplicate jobs, nor any cost/quota or permission requirements, which matters given the sibling enterprise_get_usage implies billing.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the next step, with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it leans toward under-specification for a mutation tool.

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, so the description should help the agent understand the async contract, but it never says what the call returns (presumably a job/translation handle) or where the uuid must have come from. Combined with a 50% schema coverage gap on language, it is minimally adequate rather than 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?

Schema coverage is only 50% (language is an undocumented enum), so the description carries weight here. Calling the uuid a 'processed Enterprise uuid' adds real meaning beyond the schema's generic 'your own identifier for the audio,' signalling the prerequisite state of the identifier. The language enum values remain unexplained in both places.

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+resource: 'Request translation of a processed Enterprise uuid.' The qualifier 'processed' tells the agent this is not a raw-audio endpoint, distinguishing it from enterprise_process_audio. It does not, however, distinguish itself from enterprise_get_translation or translate_episode, which is the remaining ambiguity.

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?

'Poll enterprise_get_status with kind=translation' gives an explicit follow-up procedure and names the sibling to use next, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of saying when this tool should NOT be used (e.g., versus enterprise_get_translation for retrieving the result), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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