game_center_leaderboards_v2_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond the HTTP verb. 'GET' implies a read-only fetch, but there is no mention of auth requirements, error behavior, pagination, or how relationship includes behave. This is a bare minimum disclosure.

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 wasteful: the exact same route string is printed twice inside the parentheses, adding nothing. Brevity stems from omission rather than disciplined editing.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing about the returned leaderboard, the meaning of included relationships, or the response shape is communicated, leaving the agent with only a 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 schema already documents all 11 parameters (id, include, limit_versions, fields_*). Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra meaning about parameter interaction or defaults.

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 just the REST route 'GET /v2/gameCenterLeaderboards/{id}' duplicated in parentheses. It restates the tool name (which already says get_instance on game_center_leaderboards_v2) rather than describing what retrieval returns or how it differs from siblings. This qualifies as near-tautology with no sibling differentiation.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and path, with no mention of the resource relationships (include, fields_* etc.) that would justify choosing this over sibling endpoints.

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