List users that joined via an invite link

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds only that it lists users via a specific invite link, but fails to disclose that the link is optional (omit for all joiners) or that 'requested' changes the result set to pending requests. These behavioral traits are left to the schema.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or padding content.

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 should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also omits the optional-link behavior and the 'requested' toggle, which are significant for understanding the tool's full range. The annotations help, but the description alone is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with these nuances.

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 40% (only link and requested have descriptions). The description does not compensate by explaining peer, limit, accountId, or the relationship between link and requested. It merely repeats 'invite link' without adding parameter-level meaning.

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 a specific action ('List users') and a specific resource ('that joined a chat through a specific invite link'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_invite_links (lists links) and list_participants (lists all participants).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_participants or list_invite_links. The schema hints at omitting the link to list all joiners and using 'requested' for pending requests, but the description itself offers no context or exclusions.

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