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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that it creates a pending invitation, sends one email, and requires browser-based acceptance. This adds concrete behavioral context about the external effect and flow, which annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The trigger condition is front-loaded, followed by a compact behavioral summary. Every clause earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the action, its side effects, and the authorization/acceptance flow. It also hints at the need to inspect existing members via list-team-members. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description repeats 'editor or viewer role' but adds no new semantic details about the parameters themselves. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema covers parameters fully.

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 clearly states the specific verb and resource: inviting a teammate by email with a role. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel-team-invitation and remove-team-member by focusing on the invite action. The phrase 'state-changing external action' reinforces its non-readonly nature.

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 opening 'Use this when...' gives a clear trigger condition. The schema also instructs to use list-team-members first for role inspection and for identifying existing invites, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling list makes it implicit.

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