discord_get_invite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the specific behavioral trait that usage counters (uses/max_uses/max_age) always read 0, which is beyond the annotation information. However, it does not detail other potential behaviors like error cases or rate limits.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, limitation vs siblings, and a 'Read-only' note. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, usage constraints, parameter details, and output type. An output schema exists, so return values need not be further explained.

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 input schema provides a description for invite_code. The description adds the normalization behavior (accepting full discord.gg/abc123 URLs and stripping them), which is useful context beyond the schema alone.

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 it looks up a single invite by code and lists the returned fields (target server, channel, inviter, expiry). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools discord_list_invites and discord_list_channel_invites by noting this endpoint does not return usage counters.

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 states when to use this tool (to get invite info) and when not to (if counters are needed, use the list invites tools). It also confirms it works for any public invite, providing clear context for selection.

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