list_iap_localizations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('List') and clarifies what localizations include, but does not disclose details like whether all locales are returned, pagination behavior, or required permissions. It adds some context beyond the name but lacks richer behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence with the verb front-loaded. Every word adds value: it identifies the action, the resource, and clarifies the domain-specific term 'localizations'. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple tool (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose. It explains what localizations are and ties to IAP context. It doesn't explain the response format, but that is implied by 'list' and the description of localizations. Sibling set_iap_localization provides context that this is the read operation. Slightly more detail about return structure could earn a 5.

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 schema already fully describes the sole parameter iapId as 'The in-app purchase ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, only repeats 'in-app purchase' in the text. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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?

The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (localizations for an in-app purchase), with parenthetical clarification of what localizations are (display names, descriptions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_iaps (which lists IAPs) and set_iap_localization (which modifies). The verb+resource is specific and 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 implies use when you need to view localizations for a specific IAP, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the read counterpart to set_iap_localization or that subscription localizations would use a different tool. No explicit exclusionary guidance is given.

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