app_infos__app_info_localizations__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the relationship scope and endpoint, but does not disclose pagination behavior or response format. This is adequate but not rich, matching the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action, and includes the HTTP endpoint for reference. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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-only list tool with full parameter descriptions and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what is being listed and the parent resource. It does not detail the response shape or pagination, but those are inferable from the name and purpose; the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap.

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% for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the relationship that the 'id' parameter is for an app info, which is already implied by the schema description.

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 uses the verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'app info localizations belonging to an app info,' clearly identifying it as a collection retrieval scoped to an app info. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like app_info_localizations__get (single get) and app_infos__get (app info itself).

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?

The description provides clear context: it lists localizations that belong to an app info, implying the need for an app info ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to use this tool versus other list tools.

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