game_center_achievements_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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the endpoint string. It does not state that this is a read-only fetch, what authentication or scoping is needed, or how sparse fieldsets and relationship includes affect the response.

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 pure duplication ('GET /v2/gameCenterAchievements/{id} (GET /v2/gameCenterAchievements/{id})') – the same path repeated twice with no added information. Brevity without content is under-specification, not conciseness.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It explains nothing about the resource returned, the meaning of include/limit_versions, or the sparse-fieldset parameters, leaving the agent with only a raw URL.

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% across all 8 parameters (id, include, limit_versions, and five fields_* sparse-fieldset params), so the schema fully documents them and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 merely the HTTP path restated verbatim, and even that is duplicated in parentheses. It conveys 'GET this resource by id' only because the raw path contains the word GET; relative to the tool name (game_center_achievements_v2_get_instance) it is a tautology and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like game_center_achievements_v2_versions_get_to_many_relationship or the v1 game_center_achievements_get_instance.

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 alternatives, and no prerequisites. An agent must guess purely from the name/path whether this returns a single achievement resource and when it should be preferred over the v1 endpoint or the versions relationship tool.

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