list_user_invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: results are limited to pending invitations (not accepted/revoked/expired) and scoped to the caller's team. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or auth beyond what the schema already states.

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 the resource and the scoping qualifier ('pending', 'your team') stated first. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only zero-required-parameter list tool, the annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents filtering and pagination, so the agent has what it needs. The description could have noted that unset email returns all pending invitations, but the core is complete.

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% and all three optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, including limit defaults and auto_paginate behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; it does implicitly explain why no status parameter exists ('pending' is fixed).

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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with a precise resource ('pending user invitations') and scopes it to 'your team'. It naturally separates itself from siblings like list_users and invite_user by resource, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite sibling tools (list_users, invite_user) that an agent could confuse this with. The word 'pending' implies a fixed status filter but that constraint is stated, not framed as usage guidance.

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