Translate text

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'translates text'. It does not disclose synchronous/asynchronous behavior, auth needs, rate limits, or any side effects hinted by openWorldHint=true.

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 sentences, but the first sentence 'Translate text' is redundant with the title. Could be merged into one concise sentence. Overall efficient but not optimally structured.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, error handling, or any additional context like nesting or enum details (only mime_type has enum).

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. It mentions 'text' and 'target_language' implicitly, but does not explain 'model', 'user', 'mime_type', or 'source_language'. Only a fraction of the parameters are addressed.

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?

Description clearly states it translates text into a target language, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like translate_audio beyond the resource type (text vs audio), and the phrase 'using the current translation request format' is vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like translate_audio or other translation tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information provided.

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