legal_translation_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the estimation basis (page count, urgency) and a key requirement (MOJ-licensed translators), but does not disclose output details, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation. Behavioral coverage is adequate but not extensive.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a pertinent regulatory detail. Every sentence adds value.

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 cost estimator with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and a crucial condition. It could mention the currency or output format, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds the context of 'legal translation' and 'urgency' but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Estimate legal translation cost based on page count and urgency.' It specifies the exact resource (legal translation) and the inputs (page count, urgency), distinguishing it from other cost estimation tools in the sibling list.

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 implies that the tool is for estimating costs when using MOJ-licensed sworn translators for UAE courts, providing necessary context. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use or avoid this tool and does not mention alternatives, though no direct sibling exists.

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