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

Although annotations already declare destructiveHint, openWorldHint and non-idempotency, the description adds valuable behavior beyond them: credits are consumed per translated word, nothing is persisted to the project, only returned, plus explicit 10 req/min, 32-item and 16,384-character limits and a required Owner role. This is exactly the operational context the annotations 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?

The cost warning is front-loaded in caps and each following clause carries real information (limits, storage behavior, role, endpoint). It is dense but well ordered; the repeated Beta/limits block could be tightened slightly.

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 5-parameter, credit-spending mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, persistence, rate limits and auth prerequisites. It stops short of explaining response shape (mitigated by no output schema) or routing to alternative translation tools.

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 the schema already documents project, from, to, items and fallback. The description adds only the 'up to 10 texts' framing plus request-level limits, so the baseline 3 applies. Note the stated '32 items per request' sits awkwardly against the schema's maxItems of 10.

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 and resource ('translate up to 10 texts with Localazy AI') and pins the operation to POST /projects/{projectId}/ai. An agent can distinguish this from sibling suggestion/candidate tools such as localazy_get_mt_suggestions without opening a schema.

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 description gives strong constraints (credit cost, rate limit, item/char ceilings, Beta, Owner role) but never states when to prefer this over alternatives like localazy_get_mt_suggestions or localazy_submit_translation. Usage is implied by the constraints rather than routed.

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