Get onboarding data for an invite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds the endpoint path and authorization class, which provides some additional context. However, it does not explain any behavioral aspects like whether the token is validated or what happens on invalid token.

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 very concise with only two sentences, both directly relevant. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides technical details (endpoint and auth). No unnecessary information is included.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, with only one required parameter and no description of it, the tool lacks completeness. The context of 'onboarding data' could be expanded to indicate its role in the invite flow (e.g., used during acceptance).

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 input schema has one required parameter (path.token) with no description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add any meaning beyond the schema definition. The agent is left without understanding what the token is or how to obtain it.

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 tool retrieves onboarding data for an invite, using the verb 'Get'. However, it does not distinguish it from the sibling tool pc_get_invites_by_token, which also retrieves invite information but not onboarding-specific data. A bit more specificity would clarify the unique purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_get_invites_by_token or other invite-related tools. The description mentions authorization class is public, but does not explain prerequisites or the typical workflow context (e.g., during invite acceptance).

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