game_center_details_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, yet it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior, or what the response contains. A bare route string gives no behavioral context for a 32-parameter read.

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 text is short but wasted: it duplicates the same route string twice instead of conveying information. This is under-specification rather than genuine 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 32-parameter relationship-expansion endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, a two-word route restatement is completely inadequate. Nothing tells the agent what this retrieval returns or how the include/fields parameters interact.

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 32 parameters has a schema description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about include/fields/limit semantics, which meets the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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/gameCenterDetails/{id}' repeated twice in parentheses, which restates the tool name rather than explaining purpose. It does imply a read of a single gameCenterDetails resource by id, but adds no differentiating detail versus siblings like game_center_details_update_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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites or alternatives are given. The agent gets no guidance on choosing this over the many other game_center_details_* siblings.

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