Translate batch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the credit cost formula (15 + ceil(total_chars/40)) and the batching constraints, which matter for planning a call. It omits auth/rate-limit details.

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?

Front-loads the core capability and limits in the first sentence, then tucks metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost) into bracketed tags. Efficient, though the metadata tags partially duplicate the schema's required list.

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 explained, and the description covers limits, cost, and required params. It is nearly complete for a 4-param batch tool; the unexplained source_lang and domain semantics are minor residual gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the load. It usefully explains that all items share one target_lang + domain and adds a 20000 total-char ceiling not present in the schema. However source_lang is never mentioned and the meaning of 'domain' is left unexplained, so it only partly compensates.

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+resource ('Translate ... strings') and scopes it as a batch operation with concrete caps (25 strings, 2000/20000 chars). A reader can distinguish it from the single-string or glossary siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 limits (up to 25 strings, 20000 total, one shared target_lang + domain) imply when this batch tool fits, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to translate_astro or the single translate sibling.

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