Read English translation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavior: attribution, license and numbering notes are returned, and the tool falls back to official mirrors if a site is down.

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 two front-loaded sentences with no wasted framing. The parenthetical list of translators and sites is slightly dense but earns its place by clarifying the translation sources.

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 four-parameter read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return context (attribution, license, numbering notes) and the mirror fallback behavior. It omits explicit pagination guidance, but limit and offset are documented in the schema.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters in detail, including the uid citation formats and translation_id examples. The description adds source context but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the uid, limit, offset or translation parameters.

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: 'Read an English translation of a text', and names the translators and source sites. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_text or compare_translations.

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 does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_text or compare_translations. It implies usage by naming translation sources, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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