beta_app_localizations__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate these. The description does not contradict annotations. However, it does not add extra behavioral context such as rate limits, response size warnings (though the schema field note mentions 200 KB), or pagination behavior beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 very short (one sentence plus the endpoint hint). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words. However, it could have added a tiny bit more usage guidance without sacrificing conciseness.

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 6 parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of localization objects with metadata like pagination links). The endpoint hint is helpful, but for a list tool with no output schema, more description about what is returned would be useful.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions). The descriptions are detailed, providing practical guidance (e.g., 'Use numeric Apple ID from apps__list, not the bundle ID', 'A full row set can exceed 200 KB'). The description adds the endpoint context, but the schema already carries the parameter semantics well.

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 states 'List beta app localizations' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'beta_app_localizations__create', 'beta_app_localizations__delete', and 'beta_app_localizations__update' by the 'List' action, and from 'apps__beta_app_localizations__list' which scopes to a specific app's localizations. The HTTP GET endpoint is also provided for additional clarity.

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 is minimal and does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention filtering prerequisites or pagination strategy. While the parameter descriptions in the schema offer some guidance (e.g., 'Use numeric Apple ID, not bundle ID' for filter_app), the description itself lacks usage context.

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