APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial value: discloses the underlying service ('Google Translate v2 compatible'), critical cost constraints ('$5/1M chars'), and behavioral traits like auto-detection and HTML tag preservation. Missing only operational details like rate limits or error behavior.

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?

Every clause earns its place in a dense, front-loaded structure. The description efficiently packs scope (90+ languages), features (auto-detect, batch, HTML), provider compatibility (Google v2), and pricing ($5/1M chars) without redundancy or fluff.

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 straightforward nature of the tool and excellent input schema coverage, the description adequately covers functional purpose, cost model, and provider details. While it lacks an output schema or explicit return value description, the expected output (translated text) is intuitively clear from the context.

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 and type definitions. The description reinforces the batch translation and HTML preservation concepts but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., specific language code standards or format syntax), 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Translate text'), quantifies scope ('between 90+ languages'), and lists key capabilities (auto-detect, batch, HTML) that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like `translate.text.detect` (which detects languages rather than translating them).

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?

Provides clear internal usage context for parameter choices (batch vs single string, HTML vs text format, optional source language), guiding when to use specific configurations. Lacks explicit mention of sibling alternatives (e.g., when to use `translate.text.detect` instead), preventing a perfect score.

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