game_center_matchmaking_queues_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 of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not mention authentication requirements, 404 behavior for a bad id, whether include expands related data, or anything about the response shape.

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 parenthetical merely duplicates the route verbatim, so half the text is pure waste. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

A four-parameter GET endpoint with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain the resource, the id, and the include/field expansion behavior. The description supplies none of this, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke the tool.

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 itself documents id, include, and the two fields_* filters. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does all the work.

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 HTTP route repeated twice: 'GET /v1/gameCenterMatchmakingQueues/{id} (GET /v1/gameCenterMatchmakingQueues/{id})'. It restates the tool name (get_instance for a matchmaking queue) without explaining what the resource represents or how it differs from the sibling game_center_matchmaking_queues_get_collection. An agent learns nothing beyond the name it already sees.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the collection endpoint, the update/delete siblings, or the many relationship endpoints. No prerequisites, no context, no alternatives are named.

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