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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance beyond that by listing the concrete metrics returned and the underlying REST endpoints, giving the agent a sense of what data comes back. It does not mention auth requirements or pagination behavior, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return payload then the scoping rules. The appended list of three API endpoints is somewhat boilerplate but is compact and does convey the scope variants, so little 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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and pagination is handled in the schema (page, page_size). An agent can call this correctly and knows what to expect back; only auth/rate-limit context is absent, which is minor for a read-only statistics call.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the hierarchical relationship between parameters that the schema documents only individually: component switches to per-language component statistics and adding language narrows to one translation. That interaction is genuine semantics beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 resource (translation statistics) and enumerates exactly what is returned: strings and words, total/translated/needing edit, percentages, checks. The multi-level scoping (project / component / translation) makes it identifiable against siblings like weblate_get_component or weblate_get_translation.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to widen or narrow scope: project alone, add component for per-language component stats, add language for a single translation. That is real routing guidance, though it never names an alternative sibling tool or states when not to use this one.

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