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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns the invitation summary including status'), the dependency on get_connected_accounts, and the token cost. It implies read-only via 'Retrieve' and does not hide side effects. This is good coverage for a getter, though it stops short of stating error conditions or authentication needs explicitly.

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?

The description is four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, prerequisite, return value, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core action and has no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple getter with a rich input schema and an output schema available, the description covers all essential contextual details: how to target the right connection, what the response contains, and the prerequisite call. Nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking this 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 baseline is 3. The description repeats what the schema already says about clerk_instance_id ('omit to use default') and does not add new meaning for the parameters. It reinforces the prerequisite but does not enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a single Clerk organization invitation by id.' This clearly distinguishes it from list_organization_invitations (plural) and revoke_organization_invitation, which are the nearest siblings. The scope ('single', 'by id') is explicit.

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 description provides clear usage context: it instructs calling clerk.get_connected_accounts first and explains how to use clerk_instance_id (target specific or default). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple getter this is sufficient. The prerequisite and instance targeting are practical guidelines.

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