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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the long-poll semantics and the 25-second cap on waiting, which the annotations do not convey. It still says nothing about return shape or pagination, so not 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the waiting behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

For a read-only polling tool with no output schema and only two optional params, the description covers purpose and timing adequately. It leaves out what the returned inbox entries contain and how it relates to sibling tools, which an agent would need to call it correctly in 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 coverage is 50%: the token parameter is documented in-schema, but wait is only typed as a number there. The description compensates by explaining wait's semantics (seconds to wait) and adds the max-25 constraint that the schema omits, so it meaningfully exceeds the baseline 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?

States a specific resource (join requests and conversations with unread messages) and scopes it to invites you host or joined, which is more precision than a bare name. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby siblings wait_for_messages or my_invites, so 4 rather than 5.

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 mention of waiting implies this is a polling/inbox-check tool, which gives an implicit sense of when to call it. However, it never states when to prefer it over wait_for_messages or read_commons, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the optional token.

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