get_shows_by_id_translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., error handling, auth requirements) but does not contradict annotations. It only mentions the language filter, which is more parameter semantics.

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 succinct: a one-line purpose, the HTTP endpoint, and two parameter definitions. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses a clean, structured format with no redundant text.

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 read-only GET with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential parameters and resource. It doesn't discuss pagination or error responses, but those are likely in the output schema and annotations. It is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 compensate. It explains id as 'the id/slug of the resource' and language as a '2 character language code', adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema types. This adequately covers both parameters.

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 clearly states 'Get all show translations', a specific verb and resource. The name and endpoint clarify it's for a show, distinguishing it from similar translation endpoints for seasons or episodes. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative translation endpoints (e.g., season or episode translations). The description provides no context about selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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