translate_text

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 effectively adds context about cost implications (API call to Whissle that may incur costs), which is valuable behavioral information not covered by the schema. It also mentions the return type (TextContent), though an output schema exists.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a critical warning, then parameter details, and finally return information. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage warnings, parameter semantics, and return type. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail, though more behavioral context (e.g., error handling) could enhance completeness.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose and providing examples (e.g., 'en' for English, 'es' for Spanish), which clarifies semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail constraints like valid language codes or text length limits.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('translate') and resource ('text'), specifying language conversion. It distinguishes from siblings like 'summarize_text' by focusing on translation rather than summarization, though it doesn't explicitly mention sibling differentiation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('when explicitly requested by the user') and includes a cost warning that implies when not to use it unnecessarily. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide detailed exclusion criteria beyond the cost consideration.

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