Google Translate

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing that the endpoint is unofficial, keyless, rate-limited, and can return blocked results. It stops short of describing retry timing or response shape, but that is a modest gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and the endpoint caveat are front-loaded before the rate-limit warning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the failure behavior is covered. However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know how to fill source/target correctly.

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% and the description says nothing about text, source, or target. It never explains that source defaults to 'auto' or that target defaults to 'en', nor the expected language-code format, so the undocumented parameters are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (Translate) and resource (text) plus the underlying mechanism (Google's unofficial gtx endpoint, no key). No sibling does translation, so it is trivially distinguishable from the search/finance/trends tools listed.

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?

Gives operational guidance: avoid rapid repeats, and when results are blocked, wait or switch to an RSS-based tool. This is clear failure-mode routing, but it never says when to prefer this over any listed sibling or what to do for other translation needs.

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