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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral scope beyond annotations by disclosing that results are computed only from 'the 100 most recently edited posts' and by specifying the return dimensions (posts, published posts, drafts, coverage percentage). It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 three tightly written sentences that front-load the trigger, then the return shape, then the exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 the description need not explain the full return structure, yet it still summarizes the useful return dimensions. Combined with rich annotations and a fully documented single parameter, the description gives an agent everything needed to select and call the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and documents the single blogId parameter as 'Blog id, or the blog's name.' The description does not add any parameter-specific syntax or format guidance beyond that. With schema coverage this high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: it checks how well a blog is translated and returns per-language post counts with coverage percentages. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_article_translations by explicitly saying 'Not for one post's translations.' An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the 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?

The opening sentence gives the triggering question ('how well their blog is translated' or 'which languages are missing posts'), and the final sentence gives the exclusion condition ('Not for one post's translations'). This covers both when to use it and when not to use it, leaving little inference for the agent.

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