beta_build_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: no auth requirements, no rate-limit notes, no statement of what is returned, and no indication that this is a safe read. The route string implies GET, but that is the only behavioral signal.

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 the parenthetical repetition of the same route is pure redundancy that earns no place. It is under-specified rather than concise: there is no front-loaded statement of what the tool does.

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 read tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides nothing about the resource being fetched or the shape of the response. An agent cannot tell what a betaBuildLocalization contains (locale, whatsNew, build) or when including relationships matters.

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_builds, fields_betaBuildLocalizations) are fully documented in the schema, including the enum values for includable relationships. The description adds nothing, which is the baseline 3 case 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 only the raw HTTP route repeated twice: 'GET /v1/betaBuildLocalizations/{id}'. It conveys that this is a single-resource read keyed by id, but it never says what a betaBuildLocalization actually is, nor distinguishes it from siblings like beta_build_localizations_get_collection or beta_build_localizations_build_get_to_one_related. This is effectively a restatement of the name/route rather than a statement of purpose.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing the localization id from a build), and no routing to alternative tools. With many near-identical beta_build_localizations siblings, an agent gets no help choosing between them.

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