Get onboarding instructions as plain text

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and public authorization class, which are useful behavioral details not captured by annotations. However, it omits error responses or behavior for invalid tokens.

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 with only two sentences and an operation line. Every part is relevant, no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists (though not shown), return values are likely documented elsewhere. The description covers the basic operation but lacks parameter explanation and usage context, making it minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 (0% coverage). The description does not explain what the token represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer solely from the endpoint path '/api/invites/{token}/onboarding.txt'.

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 title and description clearly state 'Get onboarding instructions as plain text'. The HTTP endpoint and authorization class are provided, making the resource and format unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling invite tools like pc_get_invites_by_token or pc_get_invites_by_token_logo.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as having a valid invite token, or indicate scenarios where other invite-related tools would be more appropriate.

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