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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing a cost of 1 unit per call. It does not, however, mention pagination or result-size behavior for the limit parameter.

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 tight sentences: the resource and scope come first, then the status set, then the read-only/cost note. Nothing redundant and no 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?

Purpose, status semantics, cost and read-only nature are all covered, and a rich output schema plus full parameter descriptions relieve the description of return-value and parameter explanation. Only minor gaps remain, such as any hint about result ordering or pagination.

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 100% and both parameters (limit, status enum with default) are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of statuses repeats the enum values rather than adding filtering or format semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list invites) scoped to invites the user has sent, and enumerates the status values. No sibling tool deals with invites, so the agent can distinguish this from list_profiles, list_notes and list_relationships without opening any 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 description implies when the tool applies (checking sent comparison invites and their status) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor any pointer to invite_person as the creating counterpart. Usage is inferable from the name and description rather than stated.

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