get_translation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup and 'across all locales' hints at the result shape, but there is no statement about authorization/prerequisites, whether a missing key errors or returns empty, or performance characteristics. Adequate for a low-risk getter, but thinner than the no-annotation bar ideally demands.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states the purpose and scope, the second handles routing to the alternative. The scoping and usage guidance are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and while the description conveys that results span all locales, it doesn't describe the exact return shape (e.g., locale-to-string map) or behavior on a missing key. For a simple read-only lookup this is close to complete, with only minor gaps.

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 parameters (key, namespace) are already documented with format hints in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get the translations') and defines the scope precisely: 'a single key across all locales.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_translations, which returns the whole namespace, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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 states the selecting condition ('targeted lookups', 'inline spot-checks') and names the concrete alternative (get_translations) along with why it is unsuitable ('too large'). That is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance tied to a specific sibling.

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