localization_pending

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description still adds meaningful behavior: stale entries carry the previous translation to update, results are enriched with context and glossary terms from localization/glossary.yaml, and the operation is part of a repeat loop. These are non-obvious traits beyond the annotation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the action to take. Every sentence contributes; only the parenthetical glossary path is slightly incidental.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-field explanation is not required, and the description covers the translate-then-set loop and stale handling well. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the unexplained `path` and `limit` parameters leave a real gap.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that `language` is a Steam API code, but says nothing about `path` or `limit` (default 30), leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states it returns the source-language texts that need translating into the target `language`, with context, length limits, and glossary terms. That is a specific resource plus scope, and it is distinguishable from siblings like localization_status and localization_set. It lacks an explicit verb ('list/returns') but the intent 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?

It gives a clear workflow: translate the returned items, then call localization_set, and repeat until nothing is pending. The next-tool alternative is named explicitly. It does not state when-not-to-use it (e.g., versus localization_status), which keeps it short of a 5.

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