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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the cost model ('Free; no Localazy credits') and the fact that results carry their originating project, both of which affect whether and how an agent calls this.

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 that front-load the purpose and return content, followed by a short cost note and the endpoint path. The raw endpoint string is mildly redundant but useful for API-literate callers; nothing else is wasted.

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 does the necessary work of describing the return shape (earlier translations plus their source project). For a read-only suggestion lookup with fully documented parameters, that is close to sufficient; ordering, result limits, and the effect of the optional 'from' filter are left implicit.

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 key_id, project, to, and from (including its project-default behavior) are already fully documented. The description only restates 'one source key into a target language' without adding format, default, or constraint detail, 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: TM suggestions for one source key into a target language, and clarifies that these are earlier human translations of the same text. This is enough to separate it from most siblings, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the near-identical localazy_get_mt_suggestions (machine translation), which is the main confusion risk.

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 'Free; no Localazy credits' note implies this is a cheap operation worth trying, and the one-key/one-language scope is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule and no mention of when to prefer localazy_get_mt_suggestions or localazy_translate_with_ai instead.

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