Translate a status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those hints by disclosing the dependency on instance configuration and explaining a non-obvious failure mode (404 means the feature is off). This is useful behavioral context that cannot be inferred from the schema or annotations.

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 wasted words: the first states the core action and mechanism, and the second delivers the critical 404 caveat. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns 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 simple read-only translation call with one required parameter and well-described optional parameters, the description covers prerequisites, failure semantics, and instance-dependent behavior. The lack of an output schema means the return shape is left implicit, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 descriptions already document `lang` and `account` with defaults and matching behavior. `id` lacks a schema description, but the phrase 'a status' makes clear that `id` refers to the status being translated. The prose does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at baseline.

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 names the exact operation ('Translate a status'), identifies the mechanism (the instance's translation backend), and clarifies the scope ('into your language'). It sets the tool apart from the sibling list because no other sibling offers translation, and the 404 caveat makes its behavior distinctive.

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 gives actionable usage context: the tool only works on instances that have configured a translation backend, and a 404 should be interpreted as feature-disabled rather than status-missing. It does not name explicit alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among the siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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