retrieve_invitations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the asynchronous nature, immediate return status, polling via get_workflow_result, the meaning of pendingReason values (queued vs outsideWorkingHours), and the risk of duplicate work from retrying.

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 longer than average, but the asynchronous workflow is complex enough to justify the detail. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and subsequent sentences explain the workflow without excessive padding. A slightly shorter version could still be effective, but the current length is acceptable.

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?

It thoroughly covers the async workflow, the immediate response, polling, pending reasons, and working-hours handling. The only gap is the lack of description of the final result payload (since there is no output schema), but the essential usage context is complete for an agent to invoke the tool and follow up 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The baseline of 4 applies, and no parameter-specific explanation is needed since there are no parameters to describe.

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 first sentence specifies exactly what is retrieved (connection, company-follow, and newsletter-subscription invitations) and names the action (st.retrieveInvitations). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like retrieve_connections or accept_invitation.

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 explicit step-by-step usage: call retrieve_invitations, then use get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName. It also explicitly warns against retrying while a workflow is running and explains how to handle outsideWorkingHours, effectively covering when to use the tool and when not to.

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