game_center_leaderboards_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 but provides almost nothing beyond a deprecation flag. It does not state auth requirements, whether the resource may be absent, or any behavioral differences from the V2 endpoint it is deprecated in favor of.

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 warning, which is good. But it needlessly duplicates the same path twice in parentheses, adding no information.

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 a rich 13-parameter schema and no output schema, the description omits the single most useful fact: the replacement tool. An agent invoking this cannot tell what to migrate to or whether relationships/fields behave differently in the V2 variant.

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 13 parameters (include, fields_*, limit_*) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about their semantics, 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 the verb (GET) and resource (gameCenterLeaderboards/{id}), so an agent can infer it fetches a single leaderboard. However, it largely restates the tool name in HTTP form rather than describing the operation in task terms, and it does not differentiate from the V2 sibling. The [DEPRECATED] prefix is the only added signal.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though a clear replacement (game_center_leaderboards_v2_get_instance) exists in the sibling list. The [DEPRECATED] tag hints the tool should be avoided, but the description never says what to use instead or under what conditions this endpoint still applies.

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