in_app_purchase_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/permission needs, no error semantics for a missing id, no mention of relationship inclusion behavior from the include/fields parameters. A raw endpoint echo is not 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?

It is short, but the entire content is the path repeated twice in parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than front-loaded information. There is no structure to speak of — just a duplicated endpoint string.

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 simple single-resource GET with a fully documented schema and no output schema, a minimal description could suffice, but this one omits every piece of context that would help an agent (resource identity, sparse-fieldset/include semantics, error handling). It is too thin even for a low-complexity read tool.

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% and all four parameters (id, include, fields_inAppPurchases, fields_inAppPurchaseLocalizations) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema 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 gives the HTTP method and path, which does convey that this retrieves a single inAppPurchaseLocalization by id. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name, with no explanatory verb beyond the raw REST route, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling locals like in_app_purchase_localizations_v2_get_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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. The only hint is the implicit 'get one resource by id' semantics of the path, which leaves the agent to infer usage entirely.

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