Supported call languages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provider-behavior context (Bland = two-way AI conversation, Twilio = scripted message plus one spoken reply), but says nothing about result shape, caching, or how filtering behaves.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the provider distinctions appended. No filler, though the parenthetical density slightly obscures the core 'lists supported languages' statement.

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 simple read-only reference tool with one optional enum parameter this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the agent still cannot predict the return shape (language names vs codes) or the effect of supplying provider.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single provider parameter. It does explain what 'bland' and 'twilio' mean semantically, which is genuine added value over the bare enum, but it never states that the parameter filters the returned language list or what omitting it returns.

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 resource (supported languages) and adds real meaning by mapping each language to its supporting provider. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling detect_language, which an agent could reasonably confuse with this lookup tool.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as detect_language, nor any note about whether the optional provider parameter narrows results. The provider capability notes hint at selection context but are not framed as usage guidance.

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