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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the closing 'Read-only.' adds nothing new. The description says nothing about behavior the annotations don't cover, such as what happens with zero or multiple IDs, or the fallback source language when no translation exists.

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 short sentences with the substantive scope front-loaded; appropriately sized for a simple list tool. The trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant with annotations and is the one line that fails to earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the read-only profile is covered by annotations. However, with zero required parameters and three UUID inputs, an agent is left unsure whether variantId is mandatory in practice and which of the alias IDs to supply — a real gap for correct invocation.

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?

Coverage is 67% and variantId has no schema description at all, yet the description never mentions parameters. It doesn't clarify that projectId and generationId are interchangeable aliases of the same UUID, nor that variantId selects the variant whose languages are listed — the single most important input decision here.

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 with scope: source plus available translation languages for a social-graphics variant. That distinguishes it from the broader list_translations sibling by narrowing to the graphics/variant domain, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_translations, translate_graphics, or get_graphics. The phrase 'for a social-graphics variant' only implies context; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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