Translate Text (Langbly)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable context such as auto-detection, batch capability, HTML preservation, and pricing, which are not captured by annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every phrase adds value.

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 4 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers key aspects: language range, auto-detect, batch, HTML, and pricing. It lacks details on error handling or per-request limits, but the annotations and output schema fill some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds modest extra meaning (e.g., 'batch translation' clarifies the array type, 'auto-detects source' restates optionality). It does not significantly exceed what the schema provides.

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 it translates text between 90+ languages, with specific features like auto-detection, batch support, and HTML preservation. It effectively distinguishes the tool as the primary translation service among siblings (detect, languages).

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 implies usage for translation tasks and mentions Google Translate v2 compatibility as a context clue, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'translate.text.detect' or 'translate.text.languages'.

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