game_center_achievement_versions_v2_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, and it discloses nothing: not the auth/permission requirements, not what happens on an invalid id, not the pagination behavior of the included relationships, and not the response shape. For a tool with zero structured safety metadata, this is a complete 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 short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: the entire content is the endpoint path duplicated in parentheses. No sentence earns its place, and nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to load.

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 six parameters (relationship includes, sparse fieldset filters), no output schema, and no annotations, an agent needs at least a hint about what is returned and how the include/fields parameters interact. The description provides none, though the fully documented schema partially compensates.

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%, with every one of the six parameters documented in the schema (id, include, limit_localizations, and the three fields_* filters). Per the rubric, high coverage establishes a baseline of 3, and the description adds nothing beyond it.

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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name and its HTTP path ('GET /v2/gameCenterAchievementVersions/{id}'), with the same string repeated inside parentheses. It signals only that this is a read of one achievement-version resource, which the name 'get_instance' already conveys, so it adds no distinguishing information against 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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no differentiation from adjacent tools such as game_center_achievement_versions_v2_create_instance or the localizations relationships. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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