Посмотреть приглашение

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: it discloses the field set returned and the lifecycle constraint that it operates on tokens 'до вступления', i.e. before acceptance. It does not discuss error behavior for expired/revoked 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?

A single sentence front-loaded with the action and resource, then the returned fields, then the input constraint. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is essentially complete, and it even lists the returned fields despite there being no output schema. Only token failure modes are unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that the token comes from the invite link without address or path. The description's 'по токену из ссылки' merely restates this, adding no format or edge-case detail (e.g. expiry or single-use).

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?

Names a specific verb (Показывает) and resource (приглашение) and enumerates the returned data (дело, роль, состояние), so an agent knows this is a read of an invitation's contents. The phrase 'до вступления' implicitly separates it from invites_accept, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'до вступления' implies the pre-acceptance context in which this tool is appropriate, which is genuinely useful framing. However, it never states when to prefer this over invites_create/invites_revoke or what happens if the token belongs to an already-accepted invitation.

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