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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the numeric state legend (0/10/20/30/100), the searchable facets, and the two backing endpoints that reveal the scoped vs global behavior. It does not discuss pagination limits or result ordering, which would round this out.

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?

Front-loads the verb+resource, then scoping, then query syntax, then endpoints in three dense sentences. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing endpoint URLs are somewhat redundant with the described scoping behavior.

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 explaining scoped vs global search, and pagination is documented in the schema itself. The remaining gap is return shape/paging behavior details, which an agent must infer from parameter descriptions.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the state-code legend used in queries and a concrete query example ('state:<translated or has:suggestion'). It does not explain page/page_size interaction beyond what the schema already states, so it is above baseline without being exhaustive.

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 ('List or search translation strings (units)') and enumerates the fields returned (source, target, state, context, location, failing checks). The scoping rule ('Give project + component + language to read one translation; without them all visible strings are searched') makes clear how this differs from the singular get_unit / list_translations siblings.

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 describes two operating modes: scoped read when project+component+language are supplied, and global search when they are omitted, plus how to search via Weblate query syntax. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g. weblate_get_unit for a single string) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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