find_invite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the public flow context which hints at authentication requirements, but it does not describe return values, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple lookup, some of this is expected but missing.

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 a single sentence of 11 words. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, stating both the action and the context with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for selection and invocation. It tells the agent what and when, but omits details about the response shape and error handling. With no annotations, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but it is adequate for a one-param lookup.

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?

The schema has only one parameter 'token' with zero description coverage. The description adds that the token is for an invite, which gives it meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide format, constraints, or where the token comes from, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Look up an invite by token'. It clearly identifies what the tool does and adds context ('for the public invite-acceptance flow') that differentiates it from sibling tools like list_invites or accept_invite.

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 provides clear context by specifying the tool is for the public invite-acceptance flow. This implies its intended use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions. It tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, but not when to use another tool instead.

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