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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no invite is sent and lists the eligibility conditions checked (caller is admin, not already a member, no pending invite). It stops short of describing the return shape or failure details.

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 a single tightly written sentence with no waste. The dry-run nature and 'Sends nothing' safety statement are front-loaded.

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 dry-run with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and eligibility checks adequately. It could be slightly more complete by stating what the preview returns, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single email parameter. It identifies the email as the invitee address being checked, but adds no format, normalization, or case-sensitivity 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?

The description uses a clear dry-run verb and resource: checks whether an email can be invited. It also distinguishes itself from the real invite action by stating it sends nothing, so an agent can tell it apart from invite_workspace_member 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?

The dry-run framing and the explicit 'Sends nothing' clause make the intended usage clear: validate eligibility without performing the invite. However, it does not name the alternative invite_workspace_member or explicitly state when not to use this preview.

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