timedoctor_check_invitation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'read-only' and 'does not send or manage invitations', covering non-destructiveness. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., boolean, object) or any edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid email, non-existent invitation). Given the lack of annotations, the description is partially transparent but leaves the exact output unspecified.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds the read-only qualifier. No filler, no redundancy. It is optimally concise for a simple check tool.

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 tool with two straightforward parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and safety (read-only). It lacks explicit return-type information, which an agent might need to interpret results, but the phrasing 'check whether exists' strongly implies a boolean. Given the simplicity, the description is nearly complete; a minor gap on return format prevents a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('email' and 'company') having minimal descriptions ('Email address to check' and 'Company ID'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it simply references checking an email. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters and the description doesn't enrich them.

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 states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'invitation existence for an email address'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting invitations, which none of the others (companies, users, tasks, projects, worklogs, time use stats) cover. No ambiguity.

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?

The description includes 'read-only - does not send or manage invitations', which clarifies when not to use it (for creating or modifying invitations). While it doesn't explicitly name an alternative (since no sibling handles invitations), the purpose is self-evident and the exclusion of management actions provides clear context.

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