get_translation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the plan requirement but omits any information about side effects, return format, potential errors, or whether the operation is safe. This is a bare minimum that fails to inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the only piece of practical information (plan requirement) after the core action. While under-specified, it is not verbose or poorly structured, so it earns a high conciseness score.

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 the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description must fully explain what the tool does, returns, and requires. It fails on all counts: it does not say what a 'translation' refers to, how to identify it, or what the response looks like. This is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool meaningfully.

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?

The tool has 0 defined parameters, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but there are none to explain. The schema's additionalProperties: true is not addressed, though the description does not need to compensate for parameters that don't exist.

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 'Get a translation,' which is a clear verb+noun pair, but it is vague and does not specify which translation or what criteria determine it. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_pending_translations or get_info, making it close to a tautology of the tool name.

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 only usage guidance is the plan requirement ('PRO plan or higher'), which is a prerequisite, not a guideline for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without direction.

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