List invites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path: no return shape, no pagination behavior, no indication of what 'invites' includes (pending/expired), and no auth context for an open-world listing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical endpoint, no filler or redundancy. It is as short as it can be, though brevity here edges into under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke. However, with no output schema and no statement about result contents, ordering, or pagination, an agent cannot anticipate what it will receive.

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 input schema has zero parameters at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the endpoint annotation is a small extra.

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?

"List invites" states a verb and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name and title; the only added information is the HTTP endpoint GET /v1/invites. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like invites_preview or invites_create beyond what the name already implies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus invites_preview or invites_create, no mention of required permissions, and no note on pagination or result limits for this open-world read. The agent must infer all of this from the name alone.

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