findTranslationsForKey

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results return, if there are pagination limits, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's function.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the 'find' results return (list of translations? structured data?), whether there are limitations (max results, pagination), or error conditions. The description alone leaves the agent guessing about important operational aspects despite the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters completely. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes a 'key' format, provide examples, or clarify 'projectSlug' conventions. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Find' and resource 'translations for a specific key', specifying scope 'across all components and languages in a project'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getTranslationForKey' by emphasizing comprehensive search across all components/languages rather than a single translation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'searchStringInProject' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when-not scenarios, prerequisites, or compare with similar tools like 'getTranslationForKey' (single translation) or 'searchStringInProject' (string-based search). The agent must infer usage from the description alone without explicit direction.

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