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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description reinforces it by noting this is a GET request and describing the output fields. It does not mention pagination behavior, but the schema documents limit/offset and their defaults.

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 convey the resource, return fields, and API endpoint with no filler. The most identifying information is 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with two optional pagination parameters and a full input schema, this description provides enough context: what is listed, which fields are returned, and how it maps to the API. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list.

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 limit and offset already documented including defaults and bounds. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 resource — Crowdin's catalog of supported languages — and states the API operation (GET /languages) plus the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as crowdin_list_branches or crowdin_get_language_progress.

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 gives clear context that this is a reference catalog of all supported languages, so an agent can select it when it needs the static language list. It does not explicitly contrast it with crowdin_get_language_progress or state when not to use it, but the resource framing is unambiguous.

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