game_center_leaderboard_versions_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, and it discloses nothing: no read-only confirmation, no auth/permission requirements, no behavior of the include/limit parameters, no error semantics. A single echoed path is a complete failure to inform behavior.

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 brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded purpose statement, and the duplicated parenthetical merely repeats the path. Nothing here earns the token cost of the description field.

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 v2 GET-instance endpoint with six query parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description should at minimum identify the resource and its relationship to the v2 leaderboard hierarchy. It identifies nothing, leaving gaps the schema cannot fill.

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 all six parameters (id, include, limit_localizations, and three fields_* sparseness filters) are documented in the schema itself. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate even though the description adds zero parameter meaning.

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 tautology: it restates the HTTP verb and path already encoded in the tool name, adding no human-readable statement of what resource is retrieved or why. An agent learns only that it fetches 'something' by id from the gameCenterLeaderboardVersions path.

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 the non-v2 sibling (game_center_leaderboard_localizations_v2_get_instance) or the parent leaderboard tools, and no prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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