app_event_localizations_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the implied read semantics of 'GET'. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, sparse-fieldset behavior, or relationship inclusion 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?

It is short, but not in an economical way: the same path string is repeated twice in parentheses with no added information. This is under-specification masquerading as conciseness rather than front-loaded structure.

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 10-parameter endpoint with relationship-inclusion and sparse-fieldset options, raw JSON:API conventions, and no output schema in the definition, a bare duplicated path leaves the agent with almost nothing. It is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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% and all 10 parameters (id, include, fields_*, limit_*) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes zero additional parameter meaning, but the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is only the raw REST path 'GET /v1/appEventLocalizations/{id}', duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It restates what the tool name already says (get a single app event localization instance) without adding any distinct purpose statement or sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as the collection endpoint or the *_get_to_many_relationship siblings, and no prerequisites. The agent gets no help deciding when this tool applies.

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