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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only: nothing is stored' is largely redundant reinforcement of what the structured fields already say. The description adds the batch cap and the POST /api/memory/lookup/ endpoint, which is modest added context for a read tool whose safety profile is already covered.

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 with zero waste; the core action and its scope are front-loaded ahead of the read-only and endpoint notes.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys the essential contract (find matches, exact or fuzzy, per language pair). It omits any hint of the return shape (match scores, multiple matches per string), but the tool is simple enough that this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (exact, project, strings, source_language, target_language) including limits. The description echoes the batch ceiling and language-pair framing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Find translation memory matches') plus its scope ('exact or fuzzy', 'up to 20 source strings', 'one language pair'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not name or contrast itself with the sibling weblate_search_memory, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied by the lookup framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no reference to the alternative weblate_search_memory or weblate_autotranslate. The agent must infer the choice rather than being routed.

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