tg_invites

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

Annotations already mark this read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: admin-rights dependency, the two result modes, and the revoked-link behavior. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a necessary permission warning and a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information; no filler.

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 still conveys what the caller will get: link usage counts, limits, expiry dates, other admins, joiners and timestamps. It also notes the revoked limitation, making the tool callable without guessing.

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 explain all parameters, and it does: chat formats, the conditional behavior of link, limit's meaning, and revoked's restriction to link lists. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: retrieving invite links for a group/channel and the joiners per link. It is clearly distinct in action from siblings like tg_invite, but it never names an alternative or says what it is not, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

It states a concrete prerequisite: admin rights are required and Telegram returns nothing without them. It also explains the two modes (with or without link param). It does not explicitly say when to prefer another tool, but the context is clear enough for invocation.

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