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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by stating that requests are read only in this workspace and that titles, summaries, and viewer-supplied text in results are untrusted content.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and state meanings, then adds workspace and trust warnings. It is reasonably compact, though the state enumeration and security note make it denser than a minimal definition.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the possible request states and the workspace scope. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe the exact return shape or whether additional request metadata is included.

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%, and the single approvalId parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from lnkdrp_request_member_invite. The description reinforces that source but does not add format or retrieval details beyond the schema baseline.

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 identifies the resource as the state of a request made through the server, specifically a member invite request tied to lnkdrp_request_member_invite. It distinguishes this from the sibling request tool by focusing on reading the request state rather than creating it, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 gives clear context: this is for checking the state of a member invite request made via lnkdrp_request_member_invite. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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