list_translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scale context (440 translations across 90 languages) and the filtering dimension, but says nothing about whether an empty filter returns the full catalog or how large the response is.

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?

One compact sentence with the scale figures front-loaded and the parameter guidance trailing. No waste, though it is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence and could state its action verb more explicitly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required here. For a single optional-parameter listing tool with annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly apart from the empty-filter semantics.

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 must carry the parameter. It does: the 'language' field is explained as a language name with two concrete examples ('french', 'english'), which is more than the bare string schema provides. The empty-string default's 'return everything' behavior is left implicit.

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 resource and scope: 'Available translations of the Quran (about 440, in 90 languages)'. An agent can tell this is a catalog-listing tool rather than a verse or surah retriever, though it does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative.

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 filtering condition ('filtered by a language name such as french or english') implies when the parameter matters, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus search_quran or get_verses, nor what to do with the results.

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