discord_get_invite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the counters quirk (uses/max_uses/max_age always 0) and the 'any public invite' scope, which an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, no filler: what it returns first, the limitation plus the alternative second, then a short type/safety line. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover read-only/open-world. The description supplies the counter caveat and scope. Minor gap: no statement on what happens for invalid or expired codes.

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% and the single parameter already documents the code format and the full discord.gg URL stripping. The description only restates 'by its code', adding nothing beyond the schema, so the 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?

Specific verb ('look up') plus resource ('a single invite by its code') and a preview of what the response contains (target server/channel, inviter, expiry). This clearly distinguishes it from discord_list_invites, discord_create_invite and discord_delete_invite among the large sibling set.

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?

Explicitly states the boundary: use discord_list_invites or discord_list_channel_invites when real usage counters are needed, because this endpoint returns zeros. That is a genuine routing rule. It does not cover private/expired-code behavior, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not statement.

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