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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read only' line is largely redundant with structured data. The description does add value by enumerating the returned invitation states (pending, accepted, revoked, email sent or failed) and clarifying the output scope, but it adds no permission, pagination, or freshness behavior beyond that.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: output contents first, then the exclusion and the alternative. It is appropriately sized for a list tool, though the parenthetical state list and the two-sentence structure are dense enough to slightly temper the score.

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 no output schema, the description capably compensates by describing what is returned (owner, accepted members, all invitations with states). For a single-parameter read-only list tool this is essentially complete; only minor edge details like ordering or pagination are absent.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics of 'site'. The description adds nothing about the parameter (for example, format or default), which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (list) and resource (teammates and invitations) and precisely delineates scope: everyone with access (owner + accepted members) plus every invitation and its state. It also excludes invite links and names invite_teammate as the tool that returns those, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a 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?

The description clarifies the boundary condition for invite links ('Invite links are not listed; invite_teammate returns one'), which points to the right alternative for that case. It gives clear context for what this tool covers but does not discuss related mutation siblings (resend_invite, revoke_invite), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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