Localize keyword

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: existing per-market phrases that were not manually overridden get replaced, which tells the agent exactly what state this mutation clobbers and what it preserves. It stops short of describing whether the AI call is synchronous, whether it consumes credits, or how failures surface, so it is not a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the overwrite rule trailing as a qualifier; nothing is padded. The slightly awkward 'Have the AI' construction is the only blemish, not a structural problem.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the call itself adequately. But for an AI-backed, non-idempotent, open-world operation it omits whether the call blocks or enqueues a job, what is returned (results, job id, nothing), and what happens if no AI provider is configured — gaps an agent would hit on first invocation.

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% — both keywordId and markets are documented in the schema, including the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format and the default of all tracked markets. The description only restates the markets filter ('or the given markets') without adding format or edge-case semantics, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (translate), resource (keyword), and scope (each market or the given markets), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It never names the adjacent siblings set_market_phrase or optimizer_localize, so differentiation is left to inference, but the AI-driven keyword translation framing is clear enough to distinguish it in practice.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Have the AI translate a keyword into the search language of each market' and the optional markets parameter is explained as a narrowing filter. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus set_market_phrase (manual phrase setting) or optimizer_localize, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a configured AI provider.

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