Levelang MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the core behavior (comparative translation across levels) and mentions output formatting ('formatted for comparison'). However, it lacks details about rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only vs. mutating operation. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, parameter documentation, and return value description. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool with complex functionality. Some sentences could be slightly more concise, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, comparative functionality) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and detailed parameter semantics. The main gap is in behavioral transparency aspects like rate limits and error handling, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return format.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantic explanations for all 6 parameters, including examples, default values, optionality, and references to other tools for valid values. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, clearly explaining what each parameter controls and how to use them.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Translate text at multiple proficiency levels to compare complexity differences.' It specifies the verb (translate), resource (text), and scope (multiple proficiency levels for comparison). It distinguishes from sibling 'translate' by emphasizing the comparative aspect across levels rather than single-level translation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'useful for understanding how grammar and vocabulary constraints change across proficiency.' It references sibling tools ('use list_languages to see available codes') but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over the basic 'translate' tool or provide exclusion criteria.

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