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

The description mentions 'token-auth', adding context about authentication. Annotations already show it is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive. However, it does not disclose side effects like sending notifications or creating records, beyond the mutation implied.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words, and conveys the essential purpose efficiently.

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?

With 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain return values (though output schema exists) or clarify parameter dependencies/alternatives. Missing prerequisites (e.g., survey must exist).

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only summarizing the recipient types but not clarifying relationships between parameters (e.g., accountId vs contactId vs recipientEmail).

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 clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'survey invitation', and specifies the recipient types. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_survey' or 'create_team_member_invite' beyond stating the recipient types.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other invitation or creation tools). There is no mention of prerequisites or context of use.

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