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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context: the client must accept before the gestoría can read anything, and the response is deliberately generic regardless of account existence (anti-enumeration). It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but it substantially exceeds what the annotations provide.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the branch behavior, then the consent requirement and return semantics. No sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema, and the description covers the return value (generic confirmation text) plus the key consent gate, which is enough to call it correctly. Edge cases like duplicate pending invitations or error responses are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is fully implied by 'Invite a client (by email)' — the description confirms the parameter is an email address. No format, validation, or normalization detail (e.g. case handling) is added, so it is adequate but minimal for a one-param tool.

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?

Specific verb (Invite) plus resource (a client / gestoría mandante) and the mechanism (by email, to link their contix account to this gestoría). The direction of the invitation is explicit, which distinguishes it from the reverse-direction sibling invite_gestoria.

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 description lays out the two branches (existing account → confirmation link, new email → registration link) and the precondition that the client must accept. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as gestoria_abrir_mandante or invite_gestoria, leaving some sibling routing to inference.

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