zitadel_get_hosted_login_translation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: default returns the merged effective file (overrides on top of shipped defaults), onlyOverrides surfaces just the stored level, and level defaults to the configured org with instance as the alternative.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope, then the merged-vs-overrides distinction, then the key format. Three dense sentences with no filler; slightly long but each clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some return-format burden, and it does describe the shape of the returned file (merged effective vs stored overrides). For a read-only, well-documented tool this is close to complete, though exact response structure is only implied.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by giving the override-key convention and a concrete example ('password.errors.couldNotCreateSessionForUser') mirroring apps/login/locales/<locale>.json, and by restating the inheritance semantics of onlyOverrides meaningfully.

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 (Read) and resource (Login V2 hosted login text overrides for a locale) and explicitly distinguishes the target from the legacy Management 'Custom Login Texts'. An agent can identify this as the read counterpart to set_hosted_login_translation without opening a schema.

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?

Explains when this is the correct resource ('the ONLY text-customization that affects the new login') and rules out the legacy alternative. It gives context for the parameter branches (onlyOverrides, level) but never names the sibling write tool as the complement, leaving a small routing gap.

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