Translate URL

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 'Lean mode — no bundle stored' (clarifies side effects), 'public HTTPS URL' (constrains input), and the return shape including 'truncated' (indicates possible content truncation). This goes beyond simply restating the annotations, though it does not cover every possible behavior like rate limits or auth, which is acceptable given the read-only nature.

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 well-structured and reasonably sized: core function in the first sentence, followed by behavior, usage guidance, return shape, and examples. Every sentence contributes value, and the examples are useful for an agent. It is slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence example, but the extra content (alternatives, return structure, examples) is justified.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema present, annotations present), the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, an alternative, key behavioral traits, and return structure. The only minor omission is explicit mention of max_tokens, but the schema fully documents that, so the overall completeness is high.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (url, max_tokens, target_lang) documented with types, descriptions, and examples. The description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The example prompts indirectly illustrate how to use url and target_lang, but this is marginal additional value.

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 the tool's function: 'Fetch a public HTTPS URL and return its content translated into a target language.' It uses a specific verb ('fetch', 'return') and resource ('content translated'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling url.extract by explicitly noting it provides raw untranslated text. This makes the purpose 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you need to understand web content in a different language' and provides a concrete alternative for a different need: 'For extracting raw untranslated text, use url.extract instead.' This satisfies the when/when-not/alternatives criterion fully.

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