game_center_groups_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: no auth requirements, no pagination behavior, no indication that the include/limit/fields parameters shape a potentially large response. A bare URL is not a behavioral disclosure.

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 not efficiently so: it simply duplicates the name inside parentheses, which is pure waste. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 an 18-parameter read tool with rich relationship-include options, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the resource and what expansion options yield. It provides none of this, leaving an agent with only a URL fragment.

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% across all 18 params, so the schema already documents id, include, fields_*, and limit_* semantics. The description adds nothing, but per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is appropriate — the burden is not on the description here.

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 essentially a restatement of the tool name as a URL path (GET /v1/gameCenterGroups/{id}), duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It does not explain what a gameCenterGroup is or what 'get instance' returns, so it is tautological rather than clarifying.

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 game_center_groups_get_collection or the many game_center_groups_*_get_to_many_related tools. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no exclusions.

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