game_center_leaderboard_set_releases_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. It discloses deprecation, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about authentication, whether the resource is readable, pagination, or error behavior for a missing id.

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 DEPRECATED flag is usefully front-loaded, but the path is printed twice in parentheses ('GET /v1/... (GET /v1/...)'), which is pure redundancy with no informational value.

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 simple get-by-id with full schema coverage and no output schema, the endpoint identification is adequate. The gap is that a deprecated tool is flagged without any migration path or explanation of why it is deprecated.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the id, include, and fields_* selectors. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (GET) and a resource path with an {id} placeholder, so an agent can infer it retrieves a single leaderboard set release by ID. However, this is largely a restatement of the tool name, and it offers no differentiation from the many sibling get_instance tools. The only added signal is the DEPRECATED marker.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternative. The DEPRECATED tag implies the tool should be avoided, but it does not point to a replacement, leaving the agent without a routing decision.

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