get_invite_tokens

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

No annotations provided, and description only states the endpoint. Does not disclose that this is a read-only GET request, nor any authentication or rate limits. Behavioral traits are entirely implicit.

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?

Very concise, includes the endpoint, but could be slightly more descriptive without adding bulk. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. However, it lacks context about what invite tokens are used for (e.g., household invitations) and does not clarify that it returns a list, which is important for completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% effectively. The description adds no parameter information, but with zero parameters, no additional semantics are needed. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 'Get Invite Tokens' and includes the endpoint URI, making it clear that this tool retrieves invite tokens. However, it does not distinguish from similar tools like 'get_token' or specify which household's tokens, but the endpoint suggests household-level tokens.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'create_invite_token' or 'email_invitation'). No prerequisites or contexts mentioned.

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