beta_app_localizations__app__get

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

Annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint: true', 'idempotentHint: true', and 'destructiveHint: false', covering the behavioral safety profile. The description minimally adds the HTTP method (GET) but no further behavioral context (e.g., error cases, pagination).

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 and front-loaded with the key action and endpoint. It is efficient but could be slightly more detailed (e.g., mentioning the response type).

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and parameter, but omits details about the return value (e.g., that it returns an 'App' resource) which would be helpful for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter described as 'Resource identifier.' The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('the app for a beta app localization'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'beta_app_localizations__get' (which fetches the localization itself) and 'beta_app_review_details__app__get' (which fetches the app for a review detail).

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 implies usage: use this tool when you have a beta app localization ID and need the associated app. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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