list_language

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

The GET method and 'Read' wording align with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the endpoint path adds a useful invocation detail. But the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of response contents, ordering, or coverage—though the output schema and annotations carry some of this burden.

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?

At two short lines, the description is compact and the endpoint is front-loaded. The phrase 'Read Language' is nearly redundant with the tool name and occupies space that could have described the returned data, but there is no bloat or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only GET backed by an output schema and rich annotations, the endpoint alone is largely sufficient. The notable gap is semantic: it never clarifies that this returns the list of supported language codes/names, which matters given closely named siblings like get_language_by_id and list_localization_language.

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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description carries no obligation to document parameters. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing for it to explain.

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 states a verb ('Read') and resource ('Language') and gives the concrete endpoint 'GET /api/v3/language', so the operation is identifiable. However, what 'Language' actually represents is never explained, and the phrasing barely goes beyond the tool name, leaving it ambiguous against siblings like get_language_by_id and list_localization_language.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description never states when to call this endpoint versus get_language_by_id for a single language or list_localization_language for localization strings, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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