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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key semantic constraint (meaning preserved, no translation) and the correctionsOnly write mode, but says nothing about permissions/auth, cost or latency for what is evidently an LLM-backed operation, or whether results are returned inline versus staged for a later step.

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 stage label and core purpose, then the routing hint. Dense but every clause carries information; the semicolon clause is the only slightly compressed part.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is only partially complete: it never states what the call returns or how the optimized text is delivered (returned vs. staged for the next stage). The 'Stage 1' hint implies staging but leaves the agent to infer it.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including correctionsOnly, audience and context. The description restates the correctionsOnly semantics rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so it sits at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('improves raw text') plus a precise scope boundary: it operates in the text's own language and explicitly does not translate. Combined with the 'Stage 1' framing, an agent can separate it from translate_text and translate_markdown 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 states a clear when-to-use condition and pipeline position: 'Use before translate_text when the input is rough.' That is actionable sequencing guidance, but it offers no exclusions (e.g., when to skip optimization, or how it relates to the sibling refine_translation).

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