ver_invitacion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what aspects of the invitation are returned. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a practical usage note. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 read tool with one parameter and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is largely complete: it states what data will be seen and when to call it. It does not describe output structure, but no output schema exists and the listed content areas give enough context for an agent to interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain invitacion_id beyond what the schema already provides via its name and title. The parameter is simple, but the description does not compensate for the absence of schema documentation.

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 says what the tool does: it shows the current state of an invitation, listing the specific parts it covers (tema, textos, foto de portada, galería, música). The phrase 'Úsala antes de editar' also distinguishes it from editar_invitacion as a read-before-edit operation.

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?

It gives an explicit usage context: use this before editing. It does not enumerate when not to use it or mention alternatives like editar_invitacion by name, but the intended workflow is clear.

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