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

The `[read]` tag is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) and the description identifies the exact returned field plus a sample value, adding some context. However, it does not describe behavior when both identifiers are supplied or when neither is, nor any error semantics, which is the main gap annotations don't cover.

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 compact sentences with the resource identified first and the calling instruction second; no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description identifies the resource, the returned value, and the input options. The only missing piece is the at-least-one-identifier requirement and conflict behavior.

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 0% and both params are nullable with no required fields, so the description's 'pass collection_id or collection_uuid' conveys the useful either/or semantics the schema leaves ambiguous. It still doesn't say which takes precedence if both are given or that exactly one is needed.

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 (read) and resource (content language of a seliee_collection), and names the returned field `seliee_collection_language` with an example value. It is distinguishable from the many sibling `get_*_language` tools by naming 'collection', though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Says to pass `collection_id` or `collection_uuid`, which implies the either/or calling pattern, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_collection or the language tools for articles/pages/leads.

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