get_invite_status

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

The description discloses the return values (PENDING, ACCEPTED with newAccountId, EXPIRED) which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, though the verb 'check' implies it. Given no annotations, this is a moderate level of transparency.

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 one sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key return values. It is front-loaded and to the point, but the parameter omission could be seen as a gap.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return values but lacks parameter explanation. The missing parameter info reduces completeness, but the return value details are adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the 'token' parameter, its format, or source. The parameter is completely undocumented, forcing the agent to infer its meaning from context.

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 checks the status of a registration invite and lists possible return values. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_invite', but the purpose is specific enough to be distinct.

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 implies usage when needing to check an invite status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites for the token parameter.

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