beel_get_invitation

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds crucial behavioral context: that revoked, expired, and accepted invitations remain readable because they are a trail, and that revoking does not erase the record. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand non-obvious semantics.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add the lifecycle nuance, followed by the endpoint. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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?

As a simple get-by-ID operation, the description covers the essential purpose and behavioral characteristic (lifecycle). The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the note that it matches the list shape. The only minor gap is that 'invitation_id' is not elaborated, but the field name and overall design make it obvious.

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 coverage is only 50% ('account_id' has a description, 'invitation_id' does not). The tool description does not add any explanation for 'invitation_id', leaving the agent to infer its format and purpose. Since schema coverage is low, the description should have compensated, but it does not.

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') and resource ('one invitation of the account') and clarifies that it returns the same shape as the list, including lifecycle statuses. This clearly distinguishes it from list operations and other tools, and the mention of lifecycle makes it unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'beel_list_invitations'. The purpose is inferable from the name and the phrase 'one invitation', but there is no direct guidance on selecting this over listing all invitations or when the invitation_id is required.

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