Google Languages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is a "free Finder endpoint", which is meaningful context given the fields parameter notes credit costs. It says nothing about response shape, result limits or pagination, so credit for added context is limited.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no padding. The only waste is the leading "Google Languages." fragment, which duplicates the title and the resource already named in the following sentence.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup this is adequate: the annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the parameter detail. It still omits what the returned language records look like and whether the result set is complete or capped, which matters for an open-world lookup.

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%, with both the query filter semantics (case-insensitive substring match) and the fields projection fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: "Search Google languages and retrieve language codes", which clearly separates it from sibling lookups like finder_google_locations and finder_google_countries. It is clear without opening the schema, though the opening "Google Languages." just restates the title.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for resolving language names/codes before calling another API. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative or complement.

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