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

Description discloses that the tool sends emails and counts against the affiliate plan cap, which adds behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description compensates well, though idempotency and error handling are not discussed.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the core purpose and limits; the second adds side effects and requirements. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It covers only the core function and required parameters, leaving optional parameters undocumented. For a tool with this complexity, more detail is needed.

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 0%. The description only mentions event_id and emails as required but provides no explanation for the other 7 parameters (starts_at, expires_at, code_prefix, discount_type, etc.). Agents are left guessing their meaning, which is a significant gap.

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 the action (invite), resource (affiliates to a live event), and constraints (up to 200, via email, with shared discount/commission). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_affiliate (individual) or send_invitations (general invites).

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 specifies prerequisites (must be a host, requires event_id and emails) and side effects (counts against plan cap, sends email). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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