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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description goes further: it discloses anonymous access, visibility into private organizations, token auto-extraction behavior, non-consumption of the invitation, and specific invalid-state error behavior. This is rich behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is well-organized into labeled sections: when to use, combination chain, and edge cases/pitfalls. Every sentence adds operational value, and the most decision-relevant information is 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description makes the tool's purpose, return concept, error conditions, and next step sufficiently clear. It covers all the practical information an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema: do not truncate the token, full links are accepted and auto-extracted, and the same token value should be reused in apply_to_organization. This goes beyond simply restating the parameter descriptions.

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 defines the tool as a preview action for an organization invitation token/link, letting the user see the organization and agreement before deciding. It also distinguishes it from apply_to_organization by positioning preview as the pre-consent step and calling out that it is the only public entry point to private organizations.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user holds an invitation token/link and wants to inspect it first. It names the follow-up alternative apply_to_organization, describes the intended chain, and clarifies that this tool only previews and does not consume the invitation.

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