game_center_app_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, yet it discloses nothing: not that this is a read-only single-resource fetch, not error behavior for a bad id, not whether relationship includes affect payload size. A bare path adds zero transparency.

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 half its content is a redundant parenthetical repetition of the identical path. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective concision, so it does not earn a high mark.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must supply the missing context. Instead it supplies none, leaving the agent with no idea what a successful response contains or how the include/fields/limit parameters shape it.

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%, so the schema already documents id, include, limit_compatibilityVersions and both sparse-fieldset parameters. Per the high-coverage baseline this is a 3; the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 just the HTTP route 'GET /v1/gameCenterAppVersions/{id}' repeated twice in parentheses. It does convey method and resource path, but it restates the tool name rather than explaining in natural language what the operation retrieves, so it is effectively a tautology.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling covers the alternative case (e.g. game_center_app_versions_compatibility_versions_get_to_many_relationship for related collections). Nothing routes the agent.

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