game_center_leaderboard_images_v2_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: no auth/permission requirements, no note that this is a read-only fetch, no pagination or relationship-expansion behavior despite an 'include' parameter. A bare URL restatement is the minimum possible 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 the content is redundant — the identical endpoint string appears twice, once outside and once inside parentheses. There is no front-loaded statement of intent, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters including relationship/field-sparse-fieldset controls, the description should explain what is returned and how the v2 image resource relates to its siblings. None of that is present, leaving the definition materially incomplete.

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 parameter (id, include, fields_gameCenterLeaderboardImages, fields_gameCenterLeaderboardLocalizations) is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so it neither helps nor harms.

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 the raw HTTP path 'GET /v2/gameCenterLeaderboardImages/{id}' duplicated in parentheses. It does imply a read of a game-center leaderboard image resource by id, but it never states the purpose in prose and gives no basis for distinguishing it from the many sibling get_instance tools (e.g. game_center_leaderboard_images_get_instance vs the _v2 variant, or game_center_leaderboard_localizations_v2_get_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 when to prefer this over the v1 image tool or the localization image relationship tools, and no prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer everything from the endpoint path alone.

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