user_invitations_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it states nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for missing ids, or what the response contains. A raw endpoint string is not behavioral context.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency, and the same route is redundantly repeated twice with no added information.

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 five-parameter endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, an agent gets zero usable context about selection, behavior, or returns. The definition is entirely inadequate.

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 the five parameters (id, include, fields_apps, limit_visibleApps, fields_userInvitations) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the path, so baseline 3 applies.

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 is a bare restatement of the HTTP route 'GET /v1/userInvitations/{id}', duplicated verbatim. It conveys the resource and that a single instance is fetched only because the name already does, adding no distinguishing purpose over the siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like user_invitations_get_collection or user_invitations_visible_apps_get_to_many_related. No context, no conditions, no alternatives.

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