game_center_leaderboard_set_versions_v2_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, yet it only says GET and implies a read. It omits authentication needs, error behavior, return shape, and how optional include/fields/limit parameters affect the response; the duplicated path adds no 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 very short, but the only content is the endpoint path duplicated in parentheses, which is redundancy rather than useful front-loading. The terseness reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 get-instance endpoint with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete: it does not explain the retrieved resource or what callers get back. The schema covers parameter names, but the description supplies almost no context beyond the URL.

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 required id and optional include, fields, and limit parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about how id identifies the version or how include/fields interact, so baseline credit is appropriate.

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 gives only the HTTP endpoint 'GET /v2/gameCenterLeaderboardSetVersions/{id}', which identifies the resource and operation in a bare technical form. It does not explain what a leaderboard set version is or how this retrieval differs from the many sibling version/relationship endpoints, and the path is repeated verbatim.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is present: there is no indication of when to call this get-instance endpoint versus list, relationship, or create endpoints. The required id appears only in the schema and is not tied to any usage advice.

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