Get invite

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

With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what is inspected (destination and usage). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers complete information without fluff. No wasted words, and the structure immediately states the action and target.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of the tool's behavior. It could go slightly further by explicitly stating the return value format, but the current content ('where it leads and how used it is') sufficiently covers the expected output.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter documentation, including formatting details ('with or without discord.gg/'). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond indicating the code is the thing being inspected, so baseline 3 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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource ('an invite code') and what it does ('where it leads and how used it is'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_invites (listing all invites), create_invite, and delete_invite.

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 for a single invite code, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_invites or other alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the distinction implicit.

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