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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful semantic scope (only pending, non-accepted invitations), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or the account-connection prerequisite that annotations don't cover. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The purpose statement is front-loaded and the routing/alternative information follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant content appears first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is complete for tool selection, though it omits the pagination mechanics and the requirement that account_id come from list_accounts, which the schema covers instead.

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% (count page size, 0-based start offset, account_id sourcing from list_accounts), so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond the implied 'sent, pending' filter, which is the correct 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 and resource ('List pending connection invitations sent by the account') and narrows scope precisely to invitations 'that have not yet been accepted.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_received_invitations by name, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('find invitations the account sent that are still pending'), names the follow-up action when data is stale ('then withdraw_invitation if stale'), and names the alternative for the opposite case ('for received ones use list_received_invitations'). Nothing is left to inference.

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