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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: discloses billing behavior (no credit consumption), a latency caveat (first request for a key can be slower), and persistence behavior (nothing is saved). These are exactly the traits an agent needs that structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the credit-cost distinction. The trailing raw endpoint path is mildly redundant given the structured schema but serves as confirmation, so it is nearly waste-free.

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 partially covers the return shape ('one per engine'), and annotations plus the description handle safety, billing, latency and persistence. It could say more about the suggestion payload format, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the target/source language defaults and where key_id and project come from. The description adds no param-level meaning beyond 'one source key into a target language', 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: MT suggestions, one per engine, for a single source key into a target language. It distinguishes itself from the paid path by naming localazy_translate_with_ai, and the 'MT' qualifier separates it from the TM sibling.

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 a clear condition for choosing this tool: it's free and consumes no Localazy credits, whereas Localazy AI does, pointing to localazy_translate_with_ai as the alternative. It stops short of contrasting with localazy_get_tm_suggestions, so the MT-vs-TM choice is left to inference.

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