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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the comparison is bounded to up to 100 recently edited translations and the result is explicitly marked when the sample is truncated. That sampling/truncation disclosure is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The scope is front-loaded in the first sentence and the important sampling/truncation caveat follows immediately.

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 one-parameter read-only audit tool with an output schema, everything the agent needs is present: the resource, the scope, the comparison basis, the sample cap, and the truncation signal. Return-value details are appropriately left to the output schema.

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% with a single well-documented blogId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the minor qualifier that the blog must be organization-owned, which is not in the schema, but it does not extend the parameter's meaning further.

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 ('Summarize multilingual article coverage') plus the exact scope ('one organization-owned Polyblog blog'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_article_translations or show_blog_overview, which enumerate rather than summarize coverage.

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 implies the use case (auditing a blog's locale coverage) and gives context about what it compares, but never states when to prefer this over list_article_translations or list_blogs, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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