game_center_leaderboard_sets_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 burden. It does disclose deprecation status, which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about what deprecation means for the caller, whether the endpoint still returns data, authentication needs, or pagination of the included relationships.

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 flag, which is the most decision-relevant fact. However, the parenthetical repeats the identical path string verbatim, which is pure waste and suggests the description was generated rather than written.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a retrieval tool needs the description to explain what is returned and how included relationships behave. The description supplies none of that, leaving only the deprecation note as a signal, which is not enough for correct invocation.

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% across all 11 parameters (id, include, limit_*, fields_*), so the schema itself documents each one. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, which is the baseline expectation when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 a raw REST path ("GET /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardSets/{id}") that restates the tool name in URL form rather than stating a purpose. It conveys only that a leaderboard set is fetched by id, and does nothing to distinguish this deprecated v1 endpoint from siblings like game_center_leaderboard_sets_v2_get_instance or game_center_leaderboard_sets_create_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?

The only guidance is the bracketed "[DEPRECATED]", which implies the tool should be avoided but never says which alternative to use (presumably the v2 sibling) or whether it still functions. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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