translate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses self-hosted processing (no third-party data sharing), truncation behavior for long text, English-pivot fallback for missing model pairs, per-call cost, and p99 latency. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Dense and front-loaded — the language list and privacy model come first, then limits and cost. Slightly overpacked with operational facts, and the dangling confidence remark is the one sentence that doesn't clearly earn its place.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important unknowns: limits, cost, latency, fallback routing, and privacy. It only omits the shape of the returned translation/confidence, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the auto-detect default behavior, truncation semantics, and the English-pivot note for pair coverage. The aside that 'confidence is the detection confidence' is slightly ambiguous since no confidence parameter or output schema is shown.

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 (Translate) and resource (text between 21 enumerated languages), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like language_detect or text_classify.

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?

Gives clear operational context: 1000-character cap per call, source_lang defaults to auto-detect, and the cost/speed profile, which helps decide whether to call it. It does not explicitly say when to prefer language_detect or another sibling, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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