game_center_achievement_localizations_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It contributes only the deprecation warning, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior, or what the localization payload contains. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 a single short line with the critical '[DEPRECATED]' warning front-loaded, which is good. But the parenthetical repeats the exact same path already stated, which is pure duplication and earns no place.

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 get-by-id tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials, and the deprecation notice is the key contextual fact. With no output schema present, however, it gives no sense of the returned localization object, so an agent knows how to call it but not what it will receive.

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% (id, include, and three fields_* sparse-fieldset params are all documented in the schema), so the description need not compensate. It adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline.

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 REST path 'GET /v1/gameCenterAchievementLocalizations/{id}' implies a read-one-by-id of a game center achievement localization, which is marginally more specific than the tool name. However, it essentially restates the name's 'get_instance' semantics rather than describing the purpose in agent-friendly terms, and it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling get_instance tools. The '[DEPRECATED]' marker is the only new information.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus siblings (e.g. the get_to_many localizations relationship tools or the v2 variants). The '[DEPRECATED]' tag implicitly discourages use but names no replacement, leaving the agent to guess whether a v2 successor should be used instead.

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