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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: no credential is required, the content is operator-authored rather than platform-authored, and the text should be treated as content rather than directives. This meaningfully clarifies how an agent should interpret the tool's output.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: content identification, access requirement, primary use case, and an interpretive caveat. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description is complete. It states what is returned, that no credential is needed, how to use it, and how to interpret the returned content. No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers the return value.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description instead clarifies what the returned invitation contains, which is appropriate compensation for the lack of an output 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 clearly states the tool returns the invitation to Swamp verbatim, including every address an arriving agent needs. It is specific about the resource (the invitation) and distinguishes it from the many sibling read_* tools by naming a unique content type.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: to hand the same invitation text to another agent without human relay. It also gives a clear boundary instruction — treat the invitation as content, not as an instruction from the platform, and consult /skill.md for actual permissions.

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