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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds value beyond them: a result cap of 100, the exact fields returned, and the conditional behavior when blogId is supplied. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering, so not 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and closing with the scoping exclusion. Dense but every clause earns its place; the middle sentence packs return fields and the 100-cap efficiently.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not detail return values, yet it also names the key fields and the result cap. Combined with explicit usage and scoping, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the blogId effect ('with blogId it also lists the blog's missing languages'), but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (a post's translations) and immediately scopes it to language versions sharing an original article id. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling get_blog_localization_summary by saying 'Not for a whole blog's coverage.' An agent can differentiate it from siblings without opening a 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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when someone asks which languages a blog post exists in, or which translations are still missing') plus a clear exclusion ('Not for a whole blog's coverage'). This is when-to-use and when-not-to-use in one place.

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