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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: previewing does not consume the invitation, it works anonymously for private organizations, and specific failure states (expired/revoked/issuer lost rights) return organization_invitation_invalid with a no-retry instruction. Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, so these disclosures carry genuinely new information.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose then workflow then edge cases; the arrow notation ('→用户同意→') compresses the flow efficiently. Slightly terse and information-packed, but every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 carries the full burden and does so: it covers purpose, the consuming workflow, token handling, idempotency ('预览不消耗'), and the exact error contract. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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, but the description adds meaning: it confirms both the 43-character token and the full link are accepted, warns not to truncate, and clarifies includeTermsBody=true is specifically for reading the agreement to the user for confirmation. This goes beyond the schema's field-level 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?

States a specific verb+resource (preview an organization invitation) and immediately scopes it ('匿名预览组织邀请（含私密组织）'), covering the private-org case that the plain name would leave ambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling apply_to_organization by describing the two as sequential workflow steps rather than overlapping actions.

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 describes the when-to-use workflow: preview first, and only when reading the terms to the user should includeTermsBody=true be set, then hand the same invitationToken to apply_to_organization to join without review. Error guidance ('过期/撤销/发放人失权报organization_invitation_invalid，不重试') tells the agent when not to retry.

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