game_center_activity_versions_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. The GET path implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose authentication requirements, return shape, error behavior, or how include/fields/limit parameters 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?

The description is short but redundantly repeats the same endpoint in parentheses. It is concise only because it is under-specified, and it does not front-load useful retrieval context.

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?

The tool has nine parameters including include, field selection, and relationship limits, plus no output schema. The description does not explain the response structure or how the include/fields/limit options work, leaving it materially incomplete for this 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 all nine parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the path, so the schema is doing all meaningful documentation; 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 merely repeats the GET endpoint path with the resource and id placeholder. It conveys that this retrieves a gameCenterActivityVersion by id, but it is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 create/update versions, get-to-many relationship tools, or release/localization relationship tools. The GET path implies retrieval, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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