fetch_translation_academy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' or 'searches' which implies read-only behavior, but it doesn't disclose details about response structure, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The schema adds some filter behavior (stemmed regex) but the description itself is thin on behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it might be too terse given the tool's complexity, but for conciseness it earns a good 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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the returned articles look like, how language/organization affect results, or provide examples of usage. For a tool with this complexity, the description should offer more context to enable correct invocation.

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 coverage is 60%, with descriptions for filter, category, and moduleId. The description adds a small amount of semantic value by explaining that the filter searches across all modules, which parallels the schema's description. However, it does not clarify language or organization parameters, and the added value over the schema is minimal. Given moderate schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving Translation Academy articles. It also mentions an alternative mode (using filter to search across modules), which adds specificity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch_translation_notes and fetch_translation_questions by explicitly naming the resource type (Translation Academy), though it doesn't contrast directly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings or exclusions. The only implicit hint is that it's for Translation Academy content, but there is no when-to-use/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.