Invite info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds value by disclosing the conditional behavior (address yields that address's link) and the fields of the programme status, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes for an invalid/off-chain address.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loading the always-available programme status before the conditional address-dependent link. No filler sentences and no wasted clauses.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does enumerate the key programme-status fields (contract, limits, live) plus the invite link. However it leaves the link's format, the meaning of the status fields, and the address-format requirement unexplained, so it is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter's meaning. It partially does: it tells the agent the value must be a Shard0 address and implies the parameter is optional (programme status is returned regardless). It does not specify address format or encoding, so the gap is only partly closed.

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?

States a specific resource (invite programme) and enumerates what it returns: programme status carried by the fields contract, limits, and live, plus a per-address invite link. The verb is implicit ('info'/'status') but the effect is unambiguous, and no sibling tool competes for this niche.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies you call it to inspect invite-programme state or retrieve a specific address's invite link, but it never states conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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