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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Only behavioral trait mentioned is the READY status prerequisite. Missing: error handling when not ready, whether output is returned as content or saved to disk (relevant given 'output_path' parameter), and side effects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action. Efficiently structured but arguably undersized given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations—it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

With 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps. While the READY state reference is helpful workflow context, the agent lacks guidance on parameter semantics, return format, and filesystem side effects.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring heavy description compensation. The text implies 'id' refers to a task ID (via 'task status' reference) but fails to explain 'output_path' (filesystem write location?) or 'to_type' (format conversion options). Only minimal implicit guidance for one of three parameters.

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?

Clear verb ('Download') and resource ('translated file') with specific workflow context ('once the task status is READY'). The READY condition effectively distinguishes this from sibling upload/translate tools by implying it's the final retrieval step in a workflow sequence.

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 conditional guidance via 'once the task status is READY', implying prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling status-checking tool (bluente_get_translation_status) or describe error behavior if called prematurely.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), return format, pagination behavior, or what 'language pairs' specifically refers to (e.g., ISO codes vs full names). Only the scope 'all' is clarified.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words with no redundancy. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Appropriate length for a parameterless discovery endpoint.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain the return structure (e.g., array of language codes). While 'language pairs' gives a hint, the lack of format details or example values leaves a gap for a tool whose only purpose is to return data.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously true). Per scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering is possible by stating 'List all'.

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?

Description provides specific verb 'List', clear resource 'language pairs', and scope 'Bluente translation platform'. It clearly distinguishes this discovery tool from operational siblings like upload_file or translate_document_workflow.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites for calling it. While the purpose is clear, the description does not state that this should be called before translating to verify language availability.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Poll progress' implies repeated safe reads, but description lacks explicit safety guarantees, rate limits, or return value structure. Adequate but minimal behavioral context.

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, zero waste. Front-loaded with action ('Query') and immediate workflow context ('Use this to poll'). Every word 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?

Adequate for a simple 2-parameter polling tool, but gaps remain: the 'entry' parameter is unexplained, no output schema exists to document return values, and mutation safety is undescribed due to missing annotations.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'id' is described; 'entry' lacks description). Description mentions 'by id' but fails to explain the undocumented 'entry' parameter (enum pdf/word), leaving its purpose and relationship to status querying unexplained.

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?

Clear verb ('Query') and resource ('task status') with specific scope ('by id'). The phrase 'after starting translation' effectively distinguishes this polling tool from siblings like bluente_translate_file and bluente_upload_file.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to poll progress after starting translation'), providing clear temporal workflow guidance. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, but the context strongly implies it is not for initiating translations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the critical polling behavior ('poll until READY') and optional download, indicating this is a blocking, synchronous-feeling workflow. However, it omits error handling behavior (what happens if max_poll_attempts is reached), state cleanup, or side effects.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with information and contains no waste—every clause earns its place by describing the workflow stages. However, given the extreme complexity (17 parameters, 0% schema coverage), it may be inappropriately terse rather than ideally 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?

For a complex 17-parameter workflow tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, a single-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of required parameters (beyond the schema), polling configuration semantics, or return value structure.

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 0%, and the description fails to compensate by mentioning any of the 17 parameters. Critical parameters like namespace, status_entry, custom_glossary vs glossary, vertical_bilingual, and scanned are completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 runs an 'end-to-end translation' workflow, specifying the exact composite actions (upload, start, poll, download) that distinguish it from atomic sibling tools like bluente_upload_file or bluente_translate_file.

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 phrase 'end-to-end' and the explicit step enumeration (upload, poll, download) imply this is the high-level orchestration tool, suggesting when to use it versus individual atomic steps. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. Fails to indicate this is likely an asynchronous operation (evidenced by the status-checking sibling), doesn't explain side effects of 'cancel' (whether it stops processing or deletes results), or mention engine behavior differences (GTC vs LLM vs PPE).

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?

Single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. However, it is inappropriately concise given the high parameter complexity (12 params, nested objects, multiple enums) and lack of schema documentation.

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?

Inadequate for a complex 12-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema. Missing explanation of engine options (GTC/LLM/PPE), bilingual formatting modes, glossary behavior, and return value structure. The presence of 'bluente_get_translation_status' as a sibling strongly implies async behavior that should be documented here.

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 has 0% description coverage across 12 parameters. The description only implicitly covers the 'action' parameter via 'Start or cancel', leaving 11 parameters (languages, engine selection, glossary flags, bilingual formatting, namespace, metadata) completely undocumented. Insufficient compensation for the schema documentation gap.

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 the core action (start/cancel) and resource (translation for uploaded file), but fails to differentiate from sibling 'bluente_translate_document_workflow'. The phrase 'uploaded file' implies prerequisite use of upload_file, but doesn't clarify why this tool exists alongside a workflow alternative.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'bluente_translate_document_workflow', nor when to choose 'cancel' versus 'start'. Missing critical async workflow guidance (e.g., that 'bluente_get_translation_status' should be used to poll for completion), despite the existence of the status-checking sibling.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return value (translation task id) which is critical since there's no output schema, and implies state mutation via 'upload'. However, it omits idempotency, side effects (e.g., storage persistence), error behaviors, or whether the translation starts automatically.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence of 11 words with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place by stating the action, target, and return value immediately.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (translation task id). With 100% schema parameter coverage and no complex nested objects, the description provides sufficient context for a 3-parameter upload tool, though it could mention this is the first step in an async workflow.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description doesn't add semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., doesn't explain what GTC/LLM/PPE engines mean, or when to enable glossary matching), but doesn't need to given the schema completeness.

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 verb (upload), resource (source document to Bluente), and specific outcome (get a translation task id). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'bluente_translate_file' or clarify if this initiates an async workflow versus other translation methods.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bluente_translate_file' or 'bluente_translate_document_workflow'. Doesn't indicate that the returned task id should be used with 'bluente_get_translation_status' or prerequisites like file format requirements.

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