translate-text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., translated text format). This is inadequate for a tool with potential API constraints.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints like API usage limits. For a translation tool with potential complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 fully documents parameters like 'text', 'targetLang', and 'formality' with enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or edge cases, but meets the baseline since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'translate' and the resource 'text', specifying it uses the DeepL API. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rephrase-text' by focusing on language translation rather than text modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-target-languages' which is related but not a direct alternative.

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 like 'rephrase-text' or the sibling language tools. It mentions the DeepL API but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or contextual triggers for choosing translation over other text operations.

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