hac_check_i18n_completeness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never states whether the scan is read-only, whether it requires a synced/configured catalog, how large a scan it triggers, or what kinds of gaps it flags — for a 3-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the documentation debt elsewhere in the definition.

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 described. However, with 0% schema description coverage on three parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves an agent without enough information to select scoping values or understand the tool's side effects.

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 compensate for three undocumented parameters. It only loosely gestures at 'languages' (via 'target languages') and says nothing about 'item_type' (defaults to Product) or 'catalog_id', leaving most parameter semantics unexplained.

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 ('Scans for') and a specific resource ('missing localized names/descriptions in target languages'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not need to distinguish itself from siblings, since none of the listed hac_* tools overlap with i18n completeness checking.

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 no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. a synced catalog), and no alternatives or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'in target languages'.

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