Translate Tweet

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the post is unchanged, that an API key is required, that each call makes exactly one request costing roughly 1 unit, and that results carry a cost estimate. Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent safety, so this is pure added value about cost and auth.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier forms, then side effects, then cost. No sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations in a wasteful way.

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 two-parameter, read-only, single-request tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers everything the agent needs: what it does, how to identify the target, that nothing is mutated, and the cost model.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the identifier forms ('post ID or post link') that the tweetId schema already documents and adds nothing about dstLang code conventions.

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 and resource ('Translate one post's text into another language') plus the accepted identifier forms, scoping it to a single post. This clearly separates it from sibling readers like tweetapi_tweet_details or tweetapi_search, which do not translate.

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?

Gives clear context (translate one post's text; use tweetapi_tweet_details to read the original and its replies), which implicitly routes the agent correctly. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. it never says what to do for multi-post translation or that no bulk variant exists.

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