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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the auth requirement, that expired invites are included and still block new invites, and that no accept links are returned because only token hashes are stored. This is exactly the kind of security/side-effect context annotations don't carry.

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?

A single dense paragraph with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (permission scope, expired-invite inclusion) are front-loaded. It is packed but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return format needn't be re-explained, and the description fully covers permissions, the expired-invite edge case, and the token-security caveat. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%; both slug and org_id are fully documented there, including that they are alternatives and that org_id comes from findagent_list_orgs. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource (lists an organization's outstanding invites) and immediately scopes it to owner/admin, which distinguishes it from the member-readable list siblings like findagent_list_members. An agent can tell what it returns and who may call it without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear permission context (owner/admin only) and the key usage fact that this is the only way to see and clear an expired invite. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative actions (findagent_resend_invite, findagent_revoke_invite) an agent might reach for, so it's clear context without explicit routing.

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