List a leaderboard's versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states only that the tool lists resources; it does not mention that the operation is read-only, what the response contains, whether pagination applies, or any prerequisite permissions. The parenthetical explains why the list is needed, not how the tool behaves.

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 that front-loads the main action and adds only the essential purpose. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter list operation, the description conveys the core invocation context. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left without information about the shape of returned version resources or any read-only/pagination caveats, so it is only minimally complete.

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% and leaderboardId has no schema-level description. The description only says 'for a leaderboard', which weakly implies that leaderboardId identifies the target leaderboard, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or its format. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the version resources for a leaderboard'. It clearly identifies what the tool operates on and adds the contextual purpose 'needed to add localizations'. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like list_game_center_achievement_versions, though the resource name makes the target clear.

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 parenthetical '(needed to add localizations)' provides a clear usage context: call this tool before adding localizations. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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