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

Annotations already carry the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds what annotations cannot: login requirement, the 30-day validity window, and the fact that agreement bodies are withheld by default. It does not describe pagination or result shape, keeping it from 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?

Bracketed labels (【需要登录】【组合链】【口径/坑】) front-load the key facts and every sentence carries information. It is slightly dense and jargon-heavy, but nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the one return-field the caller must inspect (currentTerms.bodyLength), plus auth, TTL, exclusions, and the follow-up tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and act on the result 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the operational trigger (read currentTerms.bodyLength, then pass includeTermsBody=true only when reciting the agreement). That is meaning the schema field alone does not convey.

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 ('别的组织点名邀请我加入、还没回应的那些') and pins down scope ('30 天有效', '还没回应'), which is exactly what distinguishes it from siblings like list_organization_member_invites (invites an org sent out) and list_my_invitations. An agent can tell what the tool returns without opening the schema.

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 three-step chain: call this tool → pass includeTermsBody=true to read the agreement to the user → respond_organization_invite to accept/reject. It also names exclusions ('已经是成员、或被那个组织移出过的，不在这里'), which is real when-not guidance.

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