APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('90+ languages') and localization feature, but omits critical behavioral details like return structure, pagination handling for the large dataset, or whether results are cached.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with no major waste. The parenthetical '(Langbly)' is somewhat cryptic (appears to be a provider reference) but doesn't significantly detract from the core message.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should ideally describe the return format (e.g., array of objects with language codes and names). As-is, it provides the minimum viable information for a simple listing tool but leaves gaps regarding the actual response structure.

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 has 100% description coverage with clear examples ('en' returns 'Spanish'). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely restating that display_language controls the output language, warranting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 'Lists all 90+ supported translation languages with localized names', providing a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools translate.text.translate and translate.text.detect by focusing on language enumeration rather than text processing.

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 explains what the tool does but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus its siblings (e.g., 'use this to retrieve valid language codes before calling translate.text.translate'). Usage must be inferred from the functional description.

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