beta_app_localizations__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 safety profile. The description adds only the HTTP GET endpoint, which is consistent but adds no extra behavioral context such as error handling, rate limits, or side effects. It does not contradict 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 single, front-loaded sentence stating the action and resource, followed by the endpoint. It contains no filler, repetitive wording, or structural issues, earning every word.

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-by-ID tool with rich annotations and a well-described schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly identifies the resource and operation, and the schema fills in details about parameters and return data. The absence of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by the 'fields_betaAppLocalizations' parameter description, which hints at the response structure.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'id' explains it comes from a list call, 'include' explains relationship costs, 'fields_betaAppLocalizations' explains sparse fields and size limits). The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema fully compensates, meeting the baseline.

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 verb ('Read'), resource ('beta app localization'), and scope ('one ... by ID'). This distinguishes it from the sibling beta_app_localizations__list, which retrieves multiple localizations, and makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 conveys the core usage scenario (fetch a single record by ID) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like the list tool, nor provide exclusion criteria. The required 'id' parameter's description ('ID from the matching list call') offers implicit guidance, but the main description itself gives no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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