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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the operation is asynchronous and results must be fetched through named sibling tools. It stops short of disclosing cost, duplication behavior, or what a repeated request does.

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, no waste, and the async constraint plus the retrieval path are front-loaded in the order an agent needs them.

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 correctly explains that this tool returns nothing directly and routes the agent to the read tools. It is complete for the happy path, though it omits failure modes such as an already-translated episode or translation still pending indefinitely.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the same language must be reused for retrieval, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Request an AI translation of a transcribed episode') and immediately characterizes the operation as asynchronous. It also names the sibling tools that read the result, making it distinguishable from enterprise_translate and other siblings.

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 a clear follow-up workflow: poll list_episode_translations, then read via get_episode_summary or get_episode_transcript with the same language. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over enterprise_translate, so the sibling differentiation stops short of the top score.

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