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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the operational context that matters: permission gating, phone-number unsupported, identity-collision risk requiring headline/city verification, and the fact that only status 'invitable' is actionable while members/pending/rejected-in-30-days/removed are returned but not invitable. None of this restates 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?

Front-loads the permission bracket and packs the remaining clauses densely; every clause carries information. It is terse to the point of being cramped for non-Chinese readers, but there is 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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers result semantics (status labels and which one is actionable) and the safety prerequisite, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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% and the schema already documents q's fallback behavior ('不传=本组织活动的参加者里还不是成员的人'). The description adds only marginal value beyond that (the no-phone constraint, matching fields), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (find people to invite into an organization) and pins down scope: field-based matching on nickname/ability/bio, with a defined fallback list when q is omitted. An agent can tell this apart from generic search_people or list_organization_members 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 prerequisites (login, OWNER/ADMIN), an explicit exclusion (phone-number lookup not supported), and an explicit next step (confirm the list, then call invite_organization_members). It closes the loop between candidate discovery and the follow-up mutation tool.

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