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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the pay-per-use cost ([x402: 0.003 USDC on Base]) and the exact input contract, which is useful. However, it does not mention supported languages, output format, or error behavior, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose, gives the exact input format, and notes the cost in just two lines. Every element earns its place without unnecessary filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: destination language, text, delimiter, example, and cost. The translated text output is obvious from the stated purpose, so no further return-value documentation is critical. A supported-languages list would be a minor enhancement.

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?

Although the schema only describes the parameter as 'service input', the description adds real semantic value by specifying the expected structure: '<idioma_destino> | <texto>' with a concrete example ('en | Hola mundo'). This is essential information that the schema alone does not provide.

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 action and resource: 'Traduce texto entre idiomas' (translate text between languages), and provides the required input format. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from the sibling tool 'traducir', which likely serves the same purpose.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'traducir', 'fast-translate', or 'traductor-juridico'. The description only explains the input format and pricing, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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