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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that possessing the token does not itself grant conversation or knowledge access, which tells the agent this call is a safe, non-privileged inspection rather than a redemption. It stops short of discussing token expiry, single-use semantics, or error behavior.

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, no filler, and the action and its fields are front-loaded ahead of the security caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description already names the salient fields. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; the only real omission is how to obtain a valid invite_token.

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 0%, so the only structured guidance is the regex pattern ^iv_[0-9a-f]{64}$. The description hints that token possession is meaningful but never says where the token comes from (e.g., an invitation link or private_space_list_invitations) or that it must be the raw iv_ prefixed value. Marginal value beyond the schema.

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 (review/preview) applied to a specific resource (an invitation) and enumerates the returned fields: Space title, purpose and inviter. It also implicitly separates this from the write-side siblings by naming 'requesting or accepting membership' as the later step.

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 phrase 'before requesting or accepting membership' clearly positions this as the pre-flight step ahead of private_space_accept_invitation / private_space_approve_invitation. It gives a clear condition for use but does not state an explicit when-not or name the alternative tools by name.

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