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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: the token never passes through the model, the human completes the step externally via POST /api/entra, and the token lives in client configuration. This tells the agent it cannot perform the entry itself, which is the crucial behavioral fact.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the operational caveat second. The parenthetical is slightly dense, but every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only explanatory tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is for and the one behavior an agent must know (the entry happens outside the conversation). It stops short of describing what the explanation itself returns, a minor gap given the low complexity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments and instead points to the external POST /api/entra endpoint where the invitation is supplied.

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 first sentence states a clear function — it explains how an agent enters — which is a specific informational purpose rather than a tautology of the name 'entra'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like prepara_ingresso or revoca_mandato, which cover adjacent parts of the same onboarding flow.

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 implies when the tool is relevant (to understand the entry procedure) and adds the important caveat that the actual entry is completed by the human guarantor outside the conversation. It never explicitly says when to prefer this over prepara_ingresso or how it fits with the other mandate tools, so usage remains implied.

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