Check invite eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that it returns both eligibility and remaining quota, scoped to the authenticated account. This goes beyond simply restating the tool name or title, though it still leaves exact output field details to the output 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?

A single, information-dense sentence that immediately states the purpose and scope. No filler or redundant wording is present.

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 eligibility check with an output schema present, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. It identifies the subject (authenticated account) and the two key outputs (eligibility and remaining quota).

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate; no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 uses a precise verb ('Report whether') and clearly specifies the resource: the authenticated account's ability to issue contest invitations and remaining quota. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contest_invite_link, which generates a link, and check_interview_capacity, which concerns interviews.

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 implies this is a pre-flight check before inviting users to contests, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusion conditions or related tools.

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