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

Annotations are minimal (only a title), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: the 30,000-character limit and the preservation of formatting. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 description is a single, compact sentence that delivers the essential purpose and key constraints without any filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters, the description covers the critical context: purpose, formatting behavior, and a size limit. It does not describe the return value, but that is likely obvious for a translation tool, so this is not a major gap.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (text and to), with 100% coverage. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Translate') and resource ('text'), and highlights formatting preservation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_classify, text_extract, and text_summarise.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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