get_friend_invite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's "Read-only lookup" merely repeats structured data. The added note that "mutation behavior has not been live-tested" is boilerplate that is confusing for a GET endpoint, contributing little real behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but the leading "get_friend_invite:" merely repeats the tool name, and the trailing "Mutation behavior has not been live-tested" is boilerplate of questionable value here.

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 needn't be explained, but the generic wrapper schema at 0% description coverage leaves query/payload/confirm_destructive unexplained, and the description compensates for only one of the four parameters.

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 coverage is 0% and all four parameters (path, query, payload, confirm_destructive) are undocumented generics. The description usefully clarifies that the path object should carry invite_id, but says nothing about query, payload, or why confirm_destructive exists on a read-only tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (GET the invite link for a given invite_id) and the HTTP endpoint, which makes it clearly a retrieval operation versus siblings like create_friend_invite or accept_friend_invite. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Read-only lookup" implies the tool is for fetching an existing invite rather than mutating it, which implicitly routes the agent away from create/accept siblings. But there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisitives, or named alternatives.

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