game_center_achievement_releases_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 discloses only that the endpoint is deprecated; it says nothing about authentication requirements, what fields are returned, pagination, or what the deprecation substitutes. Even the deprecation notice gives no replacement path.

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 and the deprecation flag is front-loaded, which is good. However, the URL is printed twice in immediate succession ('GET /v1/... (GET /v1/...)'), which is pure redundancy and wastes the brief space available.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it does not explain the response shape, the effect of 'include'/'fields_*' selectors, or the migration path implied by deprecation. The schema covers the inputs but nothing else, leaving real gaps.

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 all five parameters (id, include, and the three fields_* selectors) are already documented with enum values in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 effectively a tautology: it repeats the tool name as a REST route ('GET /v1/gameCenterAchievementReleases/{id}') with no prose stating what it does or returns. The only added signal is the '[DEPRECATED]' tag, which is useful but does not clarify the resource's meaning beyond what the name already implies.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings such as game_center_achievement_releases_delete_instance, game_center_achievement_releases_create_instance, or the to-many relationship variants. The deprecation tag hints at avoidance but never names a replacement or condition, leaving the agent without routing information.

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