game_center_achievements_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 burden. It only discloses that the endpoint is deprecated; it says nothing about auth requirements, whether related resources are expanded by default, or the shape of the returned document.

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 very short and front-loads the deprecation warning, which is the most important signal. However, echoing the same path twice in parentheses is pure noise with no informational value.

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 10-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is far too thin. It omits what the endpoint returns, how 'include' and the 'fields_*' sparse-fieldset parameters affect the response, and what to use instead of this deprecated endpoint.

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% and every one of the 10 parameters is documented in the schema (id, include, limit_*, fields_*). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 supplies a verb (GET) and a resource path (gameCenterAchievements/{id}), so an agent can infer it fetches one Game Center achievement by id. It does not distinguish this from siblings like game_center_achievements_v2_get_instance, and the path is duplicated verbatim, adding no human-readable statement of purpose.

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 only guidance is the [DEPRECATED] tag, which does warn against new use, but it never names a replacement (e.g., the v2 tool) or states what conditions select this tool. An agent is left to guess the migration path.

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