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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds return content (who was invited, whether the code is still valid) and reiterates 'rein lesend', but does not disclose output format or pagination. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the added context is useful but not exhaustive.

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 purpose and usage, followed by alternatives. The 'Rein lesend' clause duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, and the trailing EN keywords are search aids, but overall the description is efficient and well-organized.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and return content. No output schema exists, and the description sufficiently explains what is returned.

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 schema fully documents scope_id including the can_manage_scope=1 requirement. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('auflisten') and resource ('Einladungscodes') and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming create_invite_code, revoke_invite_code, and list_code_allowlist. It also clarifies that the list is scoped to the user's own codes, leaving no ambiguity.

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 says to use it to find a code for sharing or revoking, and names the alternative tools for creating, invalidating, and viewing allowlists. This provides clear when-to-use and alternatives without requiring inference.

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