List my pending invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the invitation scope (own email, not-yet-joined organizations), but does not disclose return format, ordering, or behavior when there are no invites. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not richer than needed.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the exact purpose and scope; the second adds a useful cross-reference to the acceptance flow. Every word earns its place.

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 and an output implication ('Pass an id from here'), the description is complete. An agent knows what invites are listedanding how the result feeds into accept_invite without needing further detail.

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 the schema and description leave nothing to clarify at the parameter level. The mention of passing an id to accept_invite concerns the output rather than an input parameter, which is appropriate for a no-parameter list tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists invitations addressed to the token user's own email. It also clarifies the invitations are for organizations not yet joined, and references the downstream accept_invite flow, making it clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_invites.

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 makes the use case clear: list pending invitations for the authenticated user's own email. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as list_invites or state when not to use this tool, but the 'own email' scoping strongly implies the distinction, and the reference to accept_invite provides actionable follow-up context.

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