beel_get_invitation

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a non-obvious lifecycle behavior: ACCEPTED, REVOKED and EXPIRED invitations remain readable and keep their status, because revocation does not erase the record. This tells the agent not to expect a 404 for revoked invitations and explains why the resource persists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first sentence, followed by the essential lifecycle caveat and the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter read operation, the description covers the operation, the non-obvious status behavior, and the exact endpoint. It references the list shape for return structure and the schema covers error semantics for account_id, though invitation-specific error responses and output fields are not spelled out.

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 already documents account_id thoroughly, but invitation_id has no schema description and the description adds no parameter-level detail. With only 50% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented invitation_id parameter; the endpoint placeholders add no semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a precise resource ('one invitation of the account'), and clarifies that its shape is the same as the list endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as beel_list_invitations and beel_create_invitation without opening any schemas.

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 clearly implies this is the single-item retrieval counterpart to listing invitations, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over beel_list_invitations or what conditions rule it out. The endpoint and 'one invitation' wording provide context, yet the guidance is left to inference rather than stated.

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