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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions the pagination limit (up to 50 keys per page) and the unsupported filters, which are useful. However, it does not disclose details like response format, authentication nuances beyond schema, or error behaviors, so it is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds pagination detail, and concludes with a limitation note. Every sentence adds value, and it is concise.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters, but the schema fully documents them. The description provides purpose, pagination, and unsupported features, giving a solid overall picture. It could benefit from mentioning response shape or when to use list_keys instead, but it is reasonably complete.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds marginal context by clarifying that search matches key name or translation text and that namespace/tags filtering is unsupported, which helps explain the lack of those parameters. This is a baseline with a slight bonus, but not enough to raise beyond 3.

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's function: searching for translation keys by name or translation text. It also specifies the resource (Tolgee project) and differentiates from siblings like list_keys or get_key by focusing on search behavior.

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 provides context on when to use this tool (for searching) and explicitly notes the limitation that namespace and tags filtering is not yet supported, advising client-side filtering when needed. It does not name an alternative tool, but the context is clear.

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