beel_list_invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that invitations of all statuses remain in the list and framing the record as a trail of access grants. This is useful for understanding data permanence, though it does not touch on response format or pagination details.

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 two concise sentences plus the endpoint line. It leads with the main purpose, then adds one relevant detail about status retention. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary explanation.

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 read-only list operation, the description covers the essential purpose and the retention behavior. The schema documents parameters and pagination defaults, and annotations cover safety. While the missing output schema means the exact response shape is not disclosed, the description provides enough for an agent to understand it returns a list of invitations. Slightly more detail on pagination or returned fields would improve, but it is not critical.

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 100%, so page, limit, and account_id are already fully documented. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing account_id in the endpoint, which is redundant. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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 clearly states the action (lists), the resource (invitations sent to join the account), and explicitly notes that all statuses are included—accepted, revoked, and expired. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beel_create_invitation, beel_get_invitation, and beel_delete_invitation, and the endpoint line further anchors its purpose.

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 by stating what it does but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not reference beel_get_invitation for single pulls or beel_create_invitation for new invites, so an agent must infer the right context. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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