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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read while adding real context: login is required, results are restricted to a 30-day window, and the agreement body is withheld by default. It also documents an output-side signal (currentTerms.bodyLength) with no output schema present, which is behavior an agent could not otherwise infer. Slightly short of 5 because it does not say whether the list is paginated or ordered.

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?

Front-loaded with the login requirement and scope, then the workflow, then exclusions, so an agent can stop reading early and still act. The includeTermsBody=true instruction appears twice (in the arrow workflow and again in the final sentence), which is mild redundancy against otherwise dense, purposeful prose.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: auth precondition, what is and is not included, the follow-up mutation tool, and the one output field that drives a parameter decision. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 the single parameter is already described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by giving a decision procedure rather than a flag definition: inspect currentTerms.bodyLength first, and only pass includeTermsBody=true at the moment the terms must be read aloud to the user.

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 opening clause names a specific verb+resource+scope: invitations from other organizations that nominated me and that I have not yet responded to, with a 30-day validity window. It also carves out neighbors in the same space (already-a-member and previously-removed cases) so the agent can distinguish this from list_my_invitations and list_organization_member_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?

Gives an explicit workflow: call this tool, and if an agreement exists pass includeTermsBody=true to read it to the user, then hand off to respond_organization_invite to accept or reject. It also states the negative condition (invitations from orgs I am already in, or that removed me, do not appear), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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