app_events_localizations_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals nothing about pagination behavior, the role of the limit/include/fields parameters, rate limits, or auth requirements. It is a bare endpoint restatement with zero added 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?

The text is short but wasteful: the same endpoint string appears twice in parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than concision. Nothing is front-loaded or structured beyond the route itself.

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 an 11-parameter relationship-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent gets no sense of what is returned, how related resources are included, or how pagination via limit/limit_* interacts with include.

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% across all 11 parameters, so the schema fully documents id, limit, include, and the various fields_* and limit_* options. The description adds nothing beyond that, which meets the baseline of 3 when 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 a literal restatement of the tool name: the HTTP route 'GET /v1/appEvents/{id}/localizations' printed twice. It conveys the verb and resource, but adds no scope, intent, or differentiation from the closely named sibling app_events_localizations_get_to_many_relationship, leaving the 'related' vs 'relationship' distinction unexplained.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternatives exist. The duplicated endpoint string tells the agent nothing about context, prerequisites, or how to choose between this and the near-identical sibling tool.

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