apple_list_treatment_localizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and explains the downstream use of the IDs, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, response shape, or what happens with an invalid treatmentId.

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?

One compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and a useful second clause about downstream usage. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter list tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and downstream linkage but omits return format, pagination, and error behaviour. Adequate but with clear gaps given the lack of structured metadata.

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 0% for the single required treatmentId parameter, and the description only indirectly hints at it via 'of a treatment'. It adds no format, source, or constraint information beyond what the bare schema type string conveys.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('localizations of a treatment'), which is distinct from the create/delete treatment-localization siblings. The added note that the resulting IDs feed apple_create_placement further pins down what this tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings.

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?

Provides clear workflow context: call this to obtain localization IDs that serve as targets for apple_create_placement. That tells an agent when to reach for it, but there are no explicit exclusions (e.g., pagination behaviour or when another listing tool would be preferred).

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