Glossary download

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds default behavior and a cost note, but then undercuts itself: 'Free (0 credits)' in the prose conflicts with the appended '[Cost: see your plan — endpoint not in the public credit manifest]', leaving the agent unsure about billing.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and specific; the query-parameter and cost sentences are short. The bracketed group/endpoint/required/cost preamble is boilerplate but compact.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers cost and defaults reasonably. It omits the key operational fact an agent needs—where the set of active locale codes is defined—and leaves the source/domain/lang relationship unresolved.

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% for the single `lang` parameter, so the schema already explains it. The description instead documents query parameters (`source`, `domain`) that do not exist in the schema, and its '?source=<lang>' phrasing muddies the relationship between `source` and the required path parameter. The defaults are mildly useful, but the mismatch with the schema limits the value added.

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 and resource: 'Download the astrology glossary for a target language,' which is unambiguous about what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from its three Content Localization siblings (translate_astro, translate_batch, translate_languages), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives parameter defaults (source=en, domain=generic) and a cost signal, but never says when to call this versus the sibling translation tools, nor that valid `lang` values come from astroway_content_localization_translate_languages. No when-not guidance at all.

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