Report or toggle Firefox full-page translation

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

With only readOnlyHint=false declared, the description does real work: it names the backing pref (browser.translations.enable, false by default in this build), the actor and its methods, and warns that an empty supported-language map with isEngineSupported=true means packs are absent rather than a broken feature. That is genuine diagnostic context an agent could not infer from annotations. It falls short of 5 because it does not disclose that disable/download mutate state or what any action returns.

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 capability statement is front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence is a dense 'MEASURED:' dump including an internal resource:// actor path that does not help an agent select or call the tool. Content that earns its place (the empty-map caveat) is buried inside implementation trivia.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description supplies the missing safety and diagnostic context — the pref, its default, and how to interpret an empty language map. The main gap is that three of the five actions (disable, pairs, download) and their return shapes are never described.

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 action enum and the source/target defaults are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying the pref toggle, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: reporting full-page translation state, plus optionally enabling it. It is clearly distinct from every sibling (no other translation tool exists in the list). However, it only names status/enable while the schema also exposes disable, pairs, and download, so the stated purpose under-describes the tool's actual scope.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives (there are none for translation, but that is never said). The five actions are never distinguished — an agent gets no help deciding between 'status', 'pairs', or 'download', which is exactly the decision the tool requires.

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