beta_app_localizations_get_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'GET' but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, whether related resources are included by default, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for an unannotated retrieval tool.

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 description is short but redundantly repeats the same endpoint twice, with the second copy in parentheses adding no information. It is front-loaded with the endpoint but wastes half its length on duplication rather than useful context.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain return values, relationship inclusion, or field selection behavior. For a get-instance tool with four parameters and rich relationship choices, the description is far too thin to be complete.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including id, include, fields_apps, and fields_betaAppLocalizations. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the path template, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate 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 essentially the endpoint path duplicated in parentheses: 'GET /v1/betaAppLocalizations/{id}' twice. It restates the tool name and URL rather than explaining what a beta app localization is or what retrieving one entails, so it does not distinguish this tool meaningfully from siblings like beta_app_localizations_get_collection or beta_app_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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for beta app localizations (get_collection, create_instance, update_instance, delete_instance, app_get_to_one_related), and the description does not say to use this one when you have an ID and need the single resource.

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