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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the invite code is never returned, codes are stored only as hashes, `displayPrefix` is the distinguishing handle, and `mintedByAgent` reveals agent-vs-human minting. The authorization requirement (owner/admin via human principal) is also stated, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and status scope, then the downstream use, then the caveats — good ordering with no filler sentences. The explanation of why codes are absent ('bearer tokens stored only as hashes') is slightly more rationale than an agent strictly needs, keeping it just under maximum.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: it names the status buckets and two key fields, plus the notable omission (invite code). Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret the result 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description wisely spends its space explaining the returned fields (`displayPrefix`, `mintedByAgent`, status categories) instead of inventing parameter guidance.

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 ('Invites minted for your org') and enumerates the statuses covered (pending, accepted, revoked, expired), so the agent knows exactly what set is returned. It also distinguishes itself from `revoke_invite` by framing this as the read side that supplies the id the mutating sibling needs.

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?

Gives clear usage context — audit what is outstanding and obtain the id required by `revoke_invite` — and names the access prerequisite ('Owner or admin, through your human principal'). It stops short of stating when *not* to call it or how it differs from other listing tools such as `list_members`, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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