translate_terms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the unknown-term behavior (returns null), and that no API call is made, which tells the agent there is no rate limit, latency, or network failure mode. It stops short of stating whether results are positionally aligned to the input array or whether partial hits are possible.

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 paragraphs, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action. The inline Korean examples earn their space by making the jargon scope concrete rather than abstract.

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 no explanation, and the description covers scope, failure mode, and cost. The remaining gap is directionality: 'look up Korean terms' leaves ambiguous whether Korean is the input or the output, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single `terms` parameter — the schema only says array of strings. The description implies batch semantics and per-term resolution ('Returns null for unknown terms'), which is genuinely useful, but it never states input language direction, ordering of results, or case/whitespace handling.

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: look up Korean disclosure, accounting, and governance terms in a curated glossary. It also scopes the domain (DART jargon) with concrete examples, so an agent knows exactly what class of string this tool handles versus the sibling filing/financial 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?

Explicitly positions itself against the alternative an agent would otherwise reach for (generic translation), and gives the selecting condition: DART jargon such as 유상증자 or 전환사채. No sibling tool overlaps, so the lack of a named MCP alternative or explicit when-not clause is a minor gap rather than a missing one.

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