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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields and status buckets, plus the underlying endpoint — though it says nothing about pagination or limits for large workspaces.

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 tightly packed elements: one sentence giving the resource and its returned fields, one line giving the path. Front-loaded and zero filler.

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 one fully documented parameter and complete annotations, the only remaining burden was explaining return values, and the description does that by listing the per-locale status counts. Missing only scale/pagination guidance for workspaces with many projects.

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 coverage is 100% and the single workspace_url parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the list_projects hint). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'translation progress of every project in one workspace', followed by the exact fields returned. The 'every project in one workspace' scope implicitly distinguishes it from lingohub_get_project_status, but the sibling is not named explicitly, keeping it just below 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?

Usage is implied by the workspace-wide scope (use it when you need status across all projects), but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or named alternative such as lingohub_get_project_status for single-project queries.

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