game_center_challenge_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers nothing about read-only semantics, auth requirements, inclusion/field expansion effects, or error behavior — the entire burden is unmet.

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 redundant — the path is printed twice, once in code form and once parenthesized verbatim. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and nothing is front-loaded that aids selection.

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?

A 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema demands a substantive description, yet the definition supplies only an endpoint string. It is wholly inadequate for correct invocation.

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 9 parameters (id, include, limit_*, fields_*) is documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing, which yields the baseline 3 for a fully-covered 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 only echoes the raw HTTP path 'GET /v1/gameCenterChallengeVersions/{id}', which merely restates the tool name in endpoint form. It identifies the resource type but never states in plain language what the tool does or how it differs from siblings like game_center_challenge_versions_create_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 preconditions. An agent gets nothing about when this is preferable to the many sibling challenge-version tools.

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