get_document_translation_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: the response contains no download URL, and the details returned are watermarked. It also clarifies that the watermark toggle only affects get_document_translation_result, preventing a likely misuse. It does not describe status values or error behavior, but the core behavioral trap is addressed.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the critical caveat about downloads and watermarks is stated immediately after, making the most important operational detail highly visible.

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 status-query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and the most likely source of confusion (downloads/watermarks). It does not enumerate possible status values or polling behavior, but for a simple status check this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (locale and order_no) in sufficient detail. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('查询文档翻译任务状态' - query document translation task status). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_document_translation_result by stating that this tool does not return download addresses and that the watermark switch only affects the result tool.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: if the user needs to download the translated document, always use get_document_translation_result. It also explains why (this tool returns only the upstream default watermarked version), making the alternative selection unambiguous.

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