List Localizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the required permission scopes and the delegated-token authorization model. It adds little on rate limits or result size, so not a 5.

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 operational sentence is front-loaded and zero-waste. The permission block is boilerplate repeated across the API surface, which adds bulk but is at least clearly separated from the core statement.

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 read-only list operation whose annotations carry safety and whose schema carries parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. With no output schema, it never characterizes the returned localization list or the effect of include_transcript, leaving a mild gap.

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%, so media_hashed_id, account, and include_transcript are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Lists all the localizations for a media'), which is clearly distinguishable from create_localization/get_localization/delete_localization. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the singular get_localization sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose sentence implies the use case (enumerate every localization attached to a media), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no named alternative such as get_localization for a single item, and no stated prerequisites beyond the auth block.

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