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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by noting the output contains an invitation_id used for subsequent actions, and specifies the invitations are 'addressed to you', which is a filtering detail beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences. The first immediately states the purpose, the second adds important context about the output. No filler or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it lists, to whom it's addressed, and how the result connects to other tools. No gaps.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details (none needed) but does not compensate for any missing schema info. Score is appropriate.

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 it lists pending organisation invitations addressed to the user, identifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from action tools like accept/decline, but does not distinguish from the sibling 'colony_org_pending_invitations', which could cause confusion.

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?

Implies usage when the user needs to see their pending invitations. Mentions invitation_id for accept/decline, suggesting a workflow. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives like colony_org_pending_invitations.

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