game_center_achievement_images_v2_get_instance

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no mention that this is a read-only fetch, no rate-limit or pagination context. The duplicated route string adds no behavioral information at all.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence is the same route string duplicated inside parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than concision. No front-loaded purpose statement or useful framing exists to justify the space.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters (including sparse-fieldset and include options), the description should explain at minimum that this fetches a single image resource and how include/fields affect the response. It explains none of this, leaving the agent to infer everything from the path and schema.

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 the schema already documents id, include, and both fields_* parameters (including the enum values for includes and fields). The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case when structured fields do 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 is the tool's own route string repeated verbatim ('GET /v2/gameCenterAchievementImages/{id}'), a tautology that restates the name rather than explaining what the tool does. An agent can only infer 'fetch one achievement image by id' from the path pattern itself, and nothing distinguishes it from the many sibling get_instance tools.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to call this tool, what it returns, or which sibling (e.g. game_center_achievement_images_v2_update_instance / delete_instance) to prefer for other operations. Nothing is provided beyond the HTTP verb.

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