game_center_leaderboard_images_get_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only repeats the deprecation and the route. It says nothing about what the response contains, whether relationships must be requested via include, authentication requirements, or what deprecation means for availability. The deprecation flag is the one useful 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 and front-loads the deprecation notice, which is good. But the parenthetical '(GET /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardImages/{id})' is pure duplication of the path already stated in the same line, so the sentence is not fully earned.

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 instance-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least indicate what is returned and how it relates to the v2 sibling. Given the large number of near-identical leaderboard-image tools, the endpoint-style text is insufficient to call this correctly and confidently.

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 all four parameters (id, include, and both fields_* filters) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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 conveys a read of a single gameCenterLeaderboardImages resource via the HTTP verb and path, so the basic action is inferable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling game_center_leaderboard_images_v2_get_instance, nor does it explain the deprecated-vs-v2 split. The parenthetical merely repeats the identical path, adding no clarifying information.

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?

The [DEPRECATED] marker is a weak usage signal, but the description never says when to use this tool, when not to, or which replacement (e.g. the v2 image endpoint) an agent should prefer. No prerequisites or conditions are given, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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