app_info_localizations_get_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only implicitly signals a read via the HTTP GET verb. It says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, 404 behavior for a bad id, or how the include/fields parameters alter the payload. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 the same endpoint string is duplicated verbatim inside parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than concision. There is no wasted prose, but also no front-loaded explanation of the operation.

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 get-by-id tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least identify what an appInfoLocalization represents (localized app name, subtitle, privacy policy URLs) or what the response looks like. Nothing beyond the route is given, leaving the agent to guess at the returned resource.

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%, so all four parameters (id, include, fields_appInfos, fields_appInfoLocalizations) are already documented in the schema with enums. The description adds no syntax or usage nuance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 just the raw endpoint path repeated twice, with no natural-language statement of what is retrieved. An agent can infer 'fetch one appInfoLocalization by id' from the URL and the tool name, but the description adds nothing beyond restating the name. It does not clarify how this differs from app_infos_app_info_localizations_get_to_many_related or app_info_localizations_update_instance.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (the to-many relationship, create, update, or delete variants). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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