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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authorization requirement (owner-only), which is genuinely useful and not in the annotations, but it says nothing about what 'pending' includes or the return shape.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the access constraint following immediately. No filler whatsoever.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the key access constraint. A note on the expected return contents would round it out, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The single teamId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what is already structured, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (pending invites for a team), which distinguishes it from the mutating sibling muninn_team_invite and muninn_team_invite_accept. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear precondition (caller must be the team owner), which is real usage context, but gives no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance or exclusions. Implied usage only.

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