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

The description discloses that the tool sends a 6-digit verification code to the invited email, which is a key side effect. Annotations already indicate non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false) and mutation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description adds appropriate context without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the step context and action, followed by the next step. Very efficient.

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?

The description clearly explains the tool's role in a two-step process. Since an output schema exists, it is acceptable that return values are not detailed. Some minor gaps exist (e.g., token source), but overall adequate.

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 parameter 'token' is well-documented in the schema. The tool description does not add further parameter details; it only mentions 'invite token' in context. Baseline 3 is 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 explicitly states it is 'Step 1 of agentic team invite acceptance' and specifies the action: validates token and sends verification code. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'accept_team_invite_verify' which is step 2.

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 positions itself as the first step and instructs to call 'accept_team_invite_verify' next. However, it does not mention where to obtain the invite token or prerequisites, relying on the schema's parameter description for that detail.

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