check_translation_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: the exact classification rules for each returned issue type, including the 30%/15-char 'short' threshold. It's silent on permissions, and being a read-style check it doesn't need to warn about mutation, so the main gap is minor.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the return-value taxonomy, and the closing usage cue. The parenthetical definitions are dense but each earns its place by defining output semantics absent from any schema.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description rightly carries the return-value explanation and does so with concrete issue definitions. Combined with 100% schema coverage of inputs, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only permission/read-only context left implicit.

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 both 'namespace' and 'keys' are already documented (including the dot-notation format). The description's 'for specific keys' merely echoes the schema without adding syntax or constraint detail, making baseline 3 correct.

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 verb+resource ('Check translation quality for specific keys') and enumerates the three issue categories it detects. It gestures at sibling differentiation via 'instead of scanning the full namespace' but never names check_translation_integrity or find_untranslated_values, so an agent must still disambiguate among overlapping siblings.

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?

'Use this for targeted quality checks instead of scanning the full namespace' gives a clear context and an implicit alternative scope. However it doesn't name the specific sibling tool it displaces, nor state when this is the wrong choice, so the routing cue is directional rather than precise.

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