missing

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral context. It adds the comparison against a base locale with default 'en' and lists three audit checks, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the output format looks like, or any operational constraints, leaving important behavioral details undisclosed.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the main verb 'Audit' and packs in the key checks and default locale. It is dense but not overly verbose, with every phrase contributing to the meaning. A minor deduction for the slightly list-like enumeration, but overall efficient.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a list of issues and their locations). It only states what it checks, not the response format or behavior, leaving a significant gap for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and how to consume its results.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'base locale (default: en)' restates the baseLocale parameter without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, it neither compensates for gaps nor enhances understanding.

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 a specific action (audit) on keys and enumerates three distinct checks (missing per locale, empty values, placeholder mismatches), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_key or search. It is a specific verb+resource combination with clear scope.

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 usage context is implied: it is for auditing translation consistency relative to a base locale. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or edge cases, so the guidance remains implicit rather than direct.

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