They don't give translations, rather explanations.
No, those are translations. A translation need not be word for word, in fact shouldn't be word-for-word. It should be words strung together to convey the same idea.
Well then, the definition of translation they have in mind is different from yours. They mean words which don't have an English equivalent.
But that's stupid. If we're going to be really strict about it, the German word for, say, towel is probably not translatable by one word, as the English and German words include slightly different things, and the various synonyms for them might have slightly different connotations. Same goes for the German word for tower, town, toxin, toy, ... or WHICHEVER FUCKING WORD YOU EVER PICK with remarkably few exceptions. For any two languages that aren't only just a few centuries diverged.
Now, again we run into problems like: we don't have any useful cross-linguistic metric for "the same word". If we made one, we'd probably be able to adjust it so we can exclude trivial examples like the ones above, but who's to decide when a word is a direct translation or not? What's needed to make them not be trivial translations? Is it just enough that some kinds of towels are excluded? Or some kind of napkin included? Etc. (And please, don't just think of that particular example and try and find flaws with what I am saying regarding that one, try getting the point. You know, the important nugget of understanding at the bottom of this).