get_invite_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no authorization/permission requirements, no pagination behavior, and no indication of what the response contains. The single '[GET ...]' path and 'read-only' keyword are the only behavioral hints.

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 meaningful content ('List invitations' plus endpoint) is front-loaded, but the bulk of the description is a long comma-separated keyword dump that adds little selection value for an agent. It is bloated without informing invocation.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the agent can call it correctly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should describe the return shape or scoping (e.g., whole household), which it does not.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No additional meaning is needed.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Get Invite Tokens', 'List invitations') and even includes the backing endpoint [GET /api/households/invitations], so the agent knows this is a read of household invitations. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like create_invite_token and email_invitation, though it never names them explicitly, keeping it at a 4.

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 or mention of alternatives such as create_invite_token (to make a token) or email_invitation (to send one). Usage is only implied by the read-only vocabulary 'list'/'get'.

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