Translate text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — 46 supported languages — but says nothing about rate limits, text length limits, or failure modes for unsupported language codes.

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?

Two short sentences, zero redundancy, with the core operation front-loaded before the scope fact. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter read-only utility with a fully documented schema and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the definition is nearly sufficient. It could mention the return value (translated text) or constraints on input length, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the English default for `from` and example codes for `to`. The description's only added parameter-relevant information is the total language count, which does not clarify code formatting or enum membership.

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 (Translates) and resource (text) with the scope of the operation (one language to another). Sibling tools are unrelated utilities (DNS, QR codes, screenshots), so there is no competing translation tool to distinguish from, but the purpose 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance beyond the obvious implication of the name. No prerequisites, no note about the default source language being English in prose, and no indication of when another sibling might be preferred.

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