translate_term

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, the description discloses material behavior: matches only designation fields, never terms merely mentioned in definitions, returns the preferred designation plus accepted variants, and supports Lucene wildcards with a retry hint. These details genuinely help an agent predict results without calling the tool.

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 front-loaded with the core function, then adds return behavior, use cases, matching semantics, and retry guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

Given the annotations, an output schema, and mostly self-descriptive parameters, the description covers the key behavioral edge cases an agent needs: what fields are matched, what is returned, and how to handle empty results. It does not spell out language code semantics or pagination details, but those are either self-evident or covered by the output schema.

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 carries the burden. It does add useful meaning for the term parameter by explaining Lucene wildcard support and the retry strategy, but it does not explain to_language, from_language, or max_results beyond what the schema's names and defaults already suggest. This is partial compensation, not full coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the official equivalent of an administrative term in another national language.' It further narrows the tool's purpose by naming the concrete use cases (authority names, department titles, titles of legal acts), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_terms or get_entries.

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?

It gives explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this for authority names, department titles and titles of legal acts.' It also provides practical guidance on handling empty results with term*, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus a sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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