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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds the GET endpoint and expected fields (id, title, status, assignees), which helps the agent anticipate the read-only response. No destructive side effects are implied, and the description aligns with the annotation.

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 with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the relevant fields are compactly listed, and the API endpoint provides concrete grounding. 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 read-only list operation, the description plus fully documented schema provide enough information to select and invoke the tool. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list, and pagination/filter parameters are fully described in the input schema.

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, so all five parameters are already documented with types, constraints, and filters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('translation/proofreading tasks'), a scope ('in a project'), and even the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as crowdin_list_strings or crowdin_list_files.

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 clear context: this tool is for translation/proofreading tasks scoped to a project, which is distinct from the other list_* siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain language is unambiguous enough for typical tool selection.

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