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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: per-call billing with charge confirmed only on success, and automatic full refund on policy violation, model timeout, or generation failure. It omits rate limits, latency expectations, and what the output actually contains.

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 capability followed by billing terms, with no filler. The tier enumeration is the only part that does not earn its place, given it contradicts the schema.

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?

Billing and failure handling are well covered, but with no output schema the description should indicate what a successful response looks like beyond 'three tiers of output'. The style-tier mismatch between the description and the enum also leaves the agent with an ambiguous mental model of the output modes.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the style enum are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's '直译+润色+术语表三档' framing loosely maps to the style options but actually conflicts in count and content with the schema's four values (literal/polished/seo/academic), adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 (translate) plus scope (10 languages, three output tiers), which is clear enough for an agent. It does not differentiate from siblings such as copywriter or docgen, which could also produce prose in a target language.

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 explanation of when to select this tool over copywriter or docgen, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent content is the billing model, which informs cost rather than tool selection.

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