List the languages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the data is read from the live API and needs no authentication key, which informs how an agent should rely on the results.

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 no repetition of the title or schema. The core information — what is returned and the main use case — is front-loaded, and the auth detail earns its place by removing a potential barrier to invocation.

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 optional-parameter list tool with no required inputs and no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, authentication, and intended use. The only missing piece is a precise description of the response shape, but the schema and context signals make the tool safely callable without it.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the kind and matching parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics, but under the baseline rule this is sufficient.

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 clear verb and resource: the tool lists the language codes and names Equalang accepts, read live from the API. It also gives a concrete task — turning a language's name into its code — which distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools like translate_file or check_job.

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?

Provides a clear use case: use it to convert a language name into its code. It does not list explicit alternatives or exclusions, but none of the siblings serve this listing purpose, and the live-API detail implies when current data is needed.

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