check_translation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It details the specific checks performed and explicitly states what the tool does not do, which is valuable transparency. It stops short of describing the output format or any error conditions, but for a read-only comparison tool this is substantial 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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and then lists the concrete checks, while the second sentence immediately clarifies the tool's limitation. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is strong on scope and limits, but because there is no output schema, it does not explain the return value or how the agent should interpret the results. An agent invoking this tool would not know whether it returns a boolean, a list of mismatches, or a detailed report, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 83%, and the schema already documents parameters like locale, forbid_source_script, and require_front_matter well. The description adds context around what 'structural drift' means and references locale prefixes and source-script characters, mildly reinforcing parameter intent, but it does not add significant new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Compare') and resource ('a translation against its source document') and enumerates the exact structural dimensions checked. It also explicitly distinguishes this from meaning-based evaluation, which helps separate it from the sibling check_* tools.

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 states the tool's scope ('structural drift') and its limitation ('cannot tell you a translation is good'), which gives a strong when-to-use signal. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'not meaning' exclusion effectively guides the agent away from using it for semantic checking.

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