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

Annotations give only readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context — this is a two-party consent operation requiring the recipient's browser-side approval, and file sharing is off by default and independently approved. That is meaningfully more than the annotations provide, though it omits revocation or failure behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and inputs, followed by the approval requirement and the sharing default. No redundancy or 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description adequately covers the consent model, defaults, and required inputs. It could be marginally stronger by routing to the sibling tools for peer discovery and alternative connection types.

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%, so peer_id, attachments, and remote_account_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the peer/remote-account pairing and the attachments default but adds no format, syntax, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 (create an invitation) and scopes it to the federated case via 'configured peer ID' and 'remote person's account ID'. An agent can distinguish this from connections.invite (local) by the peer/remote framing, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 consent flow ('recipient must approve it in their own browser') implies when this call is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs connections.invite or federation.connections.list, and no stated prerequisite to call federation.peers.list first (that only appears in the schema).

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