get_user_invite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. The description adds the pending-invite scope constraint, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions/authorization required or what happens for a non-pending or unknown invite id (error vs empty). openWorldHint=true is unexplained.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the resource scope front-loaded and the disambiguation rule immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

A simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage needs little more than this. The one residual ambiguity is whether an accepted or expired invite can still be fetched by id, since the description says 'pending invites only' while also advertising a status field.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter has its own description ('The invite ID to retrieve'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by invite id' and adds no format or sourcing guidance (e.g. where to obtain the ID) 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?

Specific verb + resource ('Get one invitation by invite id') plus the returned fields (email, role, status, expiry), and it explicitly separates itself from get_user. An agent can tell it apart from list_user_invites and get_user without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Use this for pending invites only; use get_user for accepted users.' That names both the use case and the alternative. It does not address the other closely related siblings (list_user_invites, resend_user_invite, delete_user_invite), so it stops short of full coverage.

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