beta_build_localizations_build_get_to_one_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden. The literal 'GET' at least signals a read-only fetch, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, what the difference is between returning the related build resource versus a relationship linkage, or error behavior for an invalid id.

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 parenthetical is a verbatim duplicate of the path already stated, so the only content is redundant and there is no front-loaded explanation of intent. Shortness here reflects under-specification rather than economy.

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 relationship-style fetch with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain what resource comes back and how it differs from the sibling relationship tool. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess from the URL alone.

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 both parameters (id and fields_builds) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 HTTP route restated twice: 'GET /v1/betaBuildLocalizations/{id}/build (GET /v1/betaBuildLocalizations/{id}/build)'. It encodes a verb and path but never says in plain language what is being fetched (the build associated with a beta build localization), so it sits close to a tautology that restates the tool name.

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, no prerequisites, and no distinction from the near-identical sibling beta_build_localizations_build_get_to_one_relationship. An agent has nothing to choose between the 'relationship' and 'related' variants.

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