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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description correctly frames it as a reporting/count operation that computes completion percentages. It stops short of noting pagination behavior (limit/offset) or whether results are cached/expensive, so it adds only modest context above the annotation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned metric and the scoping, with the API endpoint appended as a compact identifier. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating the shape of the result (per-language translation and approval percentages), which is the key missing piece for an agent. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only guidance on result size/pagination interaction is absent.

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% — limit, offset, and projectId all carry inline descriptions with defaults and bounds — so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description mentions project scoping only implicitly via the API path and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific retrieval target (per-target-language translation & approval completion percentages for a project) and even cites the underlying endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like crowdin_get_project or crowdin_list_projects, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

It positions the tool as 'the headline localization status,' which hints at when it matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. project-level vs language-level reporting), and no stated prerequisites beyond the required projectId.

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