List pending invitations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing that this endpoint requires the OWNER role because it exposes email addresses of people who are not yet members, which is a privacy/authorization consideration beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core function and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the authorization requirement is explained concisely in the second sentence.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, key output fields, and authorization requirements. It does not state the exact response structure, but there is no output schema and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 describes the org parameter thoroughly, including accepted formats, default behavior, and a pointer to list_orgs. With 100% schema description coverage, the description is not required to add further parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('an organisation's pending invitations') and specifies the data returned (email, role, when sent). It accurately distinguishes this org-level invitation list from sibling tools like list_members or list_my_invites through the phrase 'organisation's pending invitations'.

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 clearly states a required condition for use ('Requires the OWNER role') and explains why, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as list_my_invites for personal invitations or list_members for current members, leaving the when-to-use vs alternatives guidance implied rather than explicit.

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