Compare translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral detail beyond that — the 2-4 translation cap and the degraded path where it lists what exists when fewer are available — but says nothing about ordering, attribution, or how partial results are presented.

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 sentences, no padding, and the primary capability is front-loaded ahead of the fallback clause. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 is responsible for signalling return content, and it does: side-by-side translations plus a Pāli opening, and an inventory list when fewer translations exist. It stops short of describing result structure or how the char-limit truncation manifests, which is a modest gap for a read-only three-parameter tool.

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 explains uid, limit (characters per translation) and translations. The description only reinforces the max of four translations implied by maxItems=4 and adds the Pāli reference content, which is a return-value trait rather than parameter guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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: fetch two to four English translations of the same text side by side, plus the Pāli opening. The multi-translation framing distinguishes it from the singular get_translation sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for comparison rather than for retrieving a single translation. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_translation, nor any exclusion or precondition beyond the fallback note.

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