Get an invitation

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a low safety-disclosure burden. It adds useful conditional behavior by noting that accountId is linked only once the invitation is completed, but it does not describe status values, error cases, or pagination.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the key output concepts—status and linked accountId—are front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's result.

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-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential return content and the conditional completion behavior. It lacks explicit status vocabulary and usage routing, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single invitationId parameter is already well documented as "The invitation id." The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as returning one invitation's status and the linked accountId once completed, which clearly signals a single-invitation lookup. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_invitations or cancel_invitation, though it relies on the title for the explicit retrieval verb.

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 singular phrasing implies use when a specific invitation's status or completed accountId is needed, as opposed to listing all invitations. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over list_invitations or how it relates to cancel_invitation.

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