get_localization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about error behavior for unknown IDs, no indication of what locale or version data comes back.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity costs the reader the information needed to call the tool correctly.

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 simple, but with no output schema the description should indicate what a localization record contains or how it differs from app-info localizations. As written, an agent knows only that it reads something called a version localization.

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% for the single required localizationId parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never says the ID is a localization resource identifier, nor that it should come from list_localizations output.

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?

"Read one version localization" states a verb and resource and adds the version-scoping that the name get_localization lacks, but it is close to restating the tool name and never mentions the identifier-based lookup that actually defines the operation.

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 on when to use this versus list_localizations or list_app_info_localizations, and no note that an ID is required or where to obtain one. The agent must infer the singular-vs-list choice purely from sibling naming.

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