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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior with no open-world access. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no auth requirements, pagination, or return format details.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be marginally improved with a brief scoping note (e.g., whether it lists all statuses), but it is efficiently sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate for calling the tool correctly. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return shape or pagination, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The single optional token parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's role or format, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (invites) with scope limitation (you created), which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like create_invite, read_invite, and join_invite. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 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?

Provides only implied usage: an agent can infer this tool is for listing invites the caller created. There is no guidance on when to use it versus read_invite or other invite-related siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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