game_center_activities_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 of behavioral disclosure, and it provides none — no mention of read-only semantics, authentication requirements, or what is returned. The duplicated route string adds no behavioral context whatsoever.

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 content is a redundant duplication of the same route string in parentheses, so neither sentence earns its place. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective 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 a 13-parameter endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate — it explains no return shape, no relationship includes, and no usage context. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 13 documented parameters (id, include, limit_*, fields_*), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond it, which lands at the baseline of 3.

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 only restates the HTTP route 'GET /v1/gameCenterActivities/{id}' in parentheses twice, which is effectively a restatement of the tool name rather than a plain-language statement of purpose. An agent can infer it fetches a single game center activity, but nothing distinguishes it from the many other get_instance siblings.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_center_activities_versions_get_to_many_related or game_center_details_game_center_activities_get_to_many_related. Usage is only implied by the URL path.

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