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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return value ('translation and interpretation tips') and the ability to specify direction and tone, which aligns with annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 the simple nature of the tool, existing annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies direction, tone, and return value, leaving no obvious gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description provides a natural-language explanation of the direction and ton parameters (e.g., 'jargon→plain' and list of tones), but it does not add substantial new information beyond what the schema already provides in the enum descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Translate between corporate jargon and plain English.' It specifies the resources (corporate jargon and plain English) and the verb (translate). Given that sibling tools are unrelated (no other translation tools), the tool is easily distinguishable.

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 explicitly mentions the key parameters for usage: direction and tone, and states what the tool returns. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the context is clear due to the unique nature of this tool among siblings.

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