beta_app_localizations__app__get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description merely restates that this is a read operation and provides the endpoint, but adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, rate limits, permissions, or side effects. It provides minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 a compact single sentence plus the HTTP path, with the key action and resource front-loaded. There is no redundant information; every word contributes to the meaning.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and implies the return value (the app object). The schema provides the necessary ID context. However, it lacks an explicit statement about the response structure, which would be more critical if there were no output schema, but here the tool's simplicity makes it acceptable.

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 for the single parameter is 100%, and the schema description 'ID from the matching list call' is clear and actionable. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only clarifying that the ID belongs to a beta app localization. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and this description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'the app' for a beta app localization, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like beta_app_localizations__get (which gets the localization itself) and apps__get (which gets an app by ID). The HTTP path further confirms the exact endpoint.

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 by stating the resource relationship ('the app for a beta app localization'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced. This falls under implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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