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

With annotations already marking this as non-read-only and non-destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it validates the token and sends a 6-digit verification code, and notes it is part of a multi-step process. However, it does not cover edge cases like invalid token handling or email delivery failures, so it stops short of a 5.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with 'Step 1', and every sentence serves a purpose: defining the action and directing to the next step. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, a full output schema, and annotations describing side effects, the description is complete for its scope. It clearly identifies the tool's role in a workflow and the expected next call, so an agent can use it correctly without additional context.

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 fully documents the token parameter. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it aligns with the described behavior, keeping the baseline score of 3.

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 it is 'Step 1 of agentic team invite acceptance' and specifies the action: validates a token and sends a code. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling accept_team_invite_verify by naming the next step, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool—as the first step of accepting an invite—and instructs the agent to call accept_team_invite_verify next. This provides direct contextual guidance and an alternative/next-step reference, which is clear and actionable.

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