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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces the read-only nature. It also adds useful behavioral context that the listing shows who was invited and whether the code is still valid. It does not describe pagination or return format, but those gaps are minor for a simple read-only list.

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 core purpose and followed by useful routing information to sibling tools. It is mostly efficient, though the appended bilingual keyword list is more search-oriented than explanatory.

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 simple, one-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It gives a basic sense of the returned information, though it could say more about the exact return structure since there is no output schema.

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 only one parameter, scope_id, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains its meaning and the required permission. The description does not add further parameter-specific detail beyond what is already in the schema, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists the user's own invite codes and indicates whether each code is still valid. It also clearly distinguishes this tool from create_invite_code, revoke_invite_code, and list_code_allowlist by naming the sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: to find a code for sharing or revocation. It also names alternatives for creating a new code, revoking a code, and viewing a code's email allowlist, leaving little ambiguity about tool selection.

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