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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the OWNER/ADMIN authorization requirement, the default filter (only pending & non-expired), and the 50-per-page pagination limit with nextCursor. This is exactly the operational detail annotations cannot convey.

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-loads the gating requirement (需要登录·OWNER/ADMIN), then chaining, then scope/pitfalls, using consistent bracket labels. Every sentence carries procedural value; 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 still tells the agent what is returned (inviter/invitee, acceptance state, expiry) and how to page through results, so a caller can invoke and interpret the tool fully without further information.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics beyond it by spelling out that status=ALL includes accepted/declined/revoked/expired, which the schema's terse '缺省 PENDING' does not. It also confirms cursor usage (nextCursor pagination).

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 (列/list) and resource (组织发出的点名邀请 – invites sent by this org), plus scope (谁邀的谁、接没接、何时过期). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_organization_invites (invites received) and list_organization_members.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (OWNER/ADMIN, requires login) and provides an actionable chaining step: use revoke_organization_member_invite(inviteId) to revoke. It also clarifies the default vs ALL filter choice, giving the agent enough to select and sequence correctly.

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