Get translation status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by enumerating what the read surfaces (status, progress, price, payment state, and next-step guidance), which is valuable since no output schema exists. It omits polling cadence, behavior for failed or expired jobs, and any auth/rate-limit notes, which are relevant for an openWorld tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the returned fields efficiently with no filler. The trailing 'and what to do next' is slightly vague, but it is short enough that the cost is minimal.

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 one-parameter read tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what comes back. It is still incomplete on the operational details an agent needs to call it correctly – identifier provenance/format and retry or polling expectations – which matter given openWorldHint.

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?

There is exactly one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. It only obliquely references 'one translation job' and never mentions the 24-character hex identifier format, where the job_id comes from, or what happens with an unknown id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus a clearly scoped resource ('status, progress, price and payment state of one translation job'), which distinguishes a single-job read from list_translations and the mutating start/download siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is achieved by scope wording rather than direct routing.

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 rather than stated: the phrase 'and what to do next' hints this is a decision-point/polling call after start_translation, but the description never says when to call it, whether to poll, or which sibling to use instead. Nothing is misleading, but the agent must infer the workflow position from the tool name.

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