Get translation pairs for semantic review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the server makes no model call, needs no API key, and excludes structurally broken keys. It also states what is returned—source/translation pairs plus review criteria—giving agents the essential behavioral context without requiring them to infer it.

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 three tight sentences, each earning its place: it states the purpose and output, discloses the no-model-call/no-API-key behavior, and routes broken-key work to check_locales. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what the response contains, the key behavioral constraints, and the boundary with check_locales. It leaves the exact content of 'review criteria' unspecified, but the stated purpose gives an agent enough context to call the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents for path, lang, limit, and source, but that is acceptable because the schema fully covers all parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return source/translation pairs plus review criteria,' and clearly states the tool's purpose—enabling semantic review of translation quality. It also differentiates from the sibling check_locales by noting that structurally broken keys are excluded.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to judge translation quality using its own reasoning, with no model call or API key. It also explicitly routes structurally broken key checks to check_locales, though it does not discuss when to prefer other siblings like check_glossary or diff_locales.

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