Utils Translate Doc

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those: the remote route and a 0.10 USD x402/base/USDC charge on eip155:8453, which tells the agent this is a paid call requiring settlement. It says nothing about what translation does, size limits, or how payment is attached.

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?

It is short, but the first line is a pure restatement of the title and earns nothing. The only substantive content is the route/price sentence, so the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 explained, but for a paid open-world translation endpoint the description omits what the tool actually does, how the x402 payment is triggered, and what src/target expect. An agent has enough to guess the purpose but not to invoke it confidently.

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% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The three parameters (src, text, target) are only guessable from their bare names and defaults ('auto', '', 'es'), leaving language-code format and text-vs-document semantics undocumented.

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 is essentially the title repeated ('Utils Translate Doc') plus a route line. The route 'POST /v1/utils/translate-doc' implies document translation, but the description never states the verb+resource in prose or distinguishes it from near-neighbors like v1_utils_doc_convert. Purpose is inferable only from the name and path.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given, despite many adjacent utils tools (v1_utils_doc_convert, v1_utils_pii_redact, v1_utils_invoice_extract) that an agent could confuse it with. The only context is a raw HTTP route and price.

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