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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful ordering guarantee ('newest first') and a Weblate-version caveat (2026.8+), which is genuine behavior the annotations do not convey, but no pagination or rate-limit detail.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scoping, then endpoint. Zero filler and no repetition of the title.

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 3-param read-only list tool whose annotations and full schema coverage already carry the safety and parameter burden, the description covers purpose, scope, ordering and endpoint adequately. It stops short of describing the response payload, but no output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, so the gap is minor.

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 schema descriptions already explain page, page_size and unit_id (including the 'from weblate_list_units' provenance). The description only restates the unit_id behavior, so it adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('List suggestions') and immediately parenthesizes what a suggestion is ('proposed translations waiting for review'), disambiguating it from sibling list tools like weblate_list_units or weblate_list_changes. It also names the two underlying endpoints, so an agent knows exactly what resource is being fetched.

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?

Explains the scoping choice: omitting unit_id lists all suggestions, passing one narrows to a single string. However it does not reference the natural workflow alternatives – that weblate_accept_suggestion or weblate_add_suggestion are the write-side siblings an agent might want after listing, nor any when-not-to-use condition.

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