game_center_leaderboard_releases_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 disclosure burden. It states nothing about return shape, permissions, or rate limits, and while the deprecation tag is a useful behavioral signal, it is not elaborated. Beyond the deprecation flag, the description adds no behavioral context.

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 route string is redundantly repeated in parentheses, which is wasted space. The front-loaded deprecation tag is the only useful content, and there is no actual explanation of the operation.

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 deprecated read endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what a leaderboard release is or point to the successor tool. It leaves the agent with only a REST path and a deprecation flag, which is insufficient to decide whether or how to call it.

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 all five parameters (id, include, three fields_* filters) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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 an HTTP route, duplicated twice ('GET /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardReleases/{id}' and again in parentheses). It conveys that this fetches a single leaderboard release by id, but adds nothing beyond the name — a tautology rather than a clarifying statement of purpose.

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 only guidance is the '[DEPRECATED]' marker, which implies the agent should avoid the tool but names no replacement or condition. There is no indication of when to use this vs. the sibling collection/relationship tools or what the deprecation means for callers.

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