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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only, and the description adds the GET endpoint plus response fields. It does not disclose pagination behavior or response structure beyond the field names, which is a gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 short sentences achieve everything: the first states the action and key output fields, the second gives the API reference. No filler, no redundancy, effectively front-loaded.

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 helpfully names the returned fields. It also implicitly identifies the required projectId context and all optional filters are fully described in the schema. A minor omission is not stating explicit pagination semantics, but the schema's limit/offset descriptions cover that.

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 each parameter including a clear description (e.g., limit 'Max rows (max 500, default 25)'). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'List' with an unambiguous resource 'source strings in a project' and enumerates the returned fields (id, text, identifier, context). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like crowdin_list_files or crowdin_list_directories by resource type.

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 context is clear: it lists source strings in a project, and the resource name distinguishes it from add/translation/list siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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