Get an invite by token

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and public authorization, which is valuable beyond annotations. It does not mention error handling or response format, but output schema 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 description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for endpoint and auth. It front-loads the key action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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, single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and output schema covering return values, the description is nearly complete. Minor gap: it could explicitly mention that this is the pre-acceptance retrieval endpoint, but that's implicit from the name and siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal semantic value—it reiterates that the token identifies the invite. It does not explain token format, expected length, or where to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the low coverage and limited additional detail.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('an invite by token'), with precise resource identification. It differentiates from sibling tools like pc_get_invites_by_token_logo and pc_post_invites_by_token_accept by focusing on the base invite retrieval.

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 notes 'Authorization class: public', providing basic access context, but does not specify when to use this tool versus other invite-related tools (e.g., when to accept or revoke). There's no explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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