List company invites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board'), which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations. This provides useful context about how the operation interacts with the system, though it could further describe side effects or pagination.

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 very short (three sentences) but repeats the title verbatim. While it is concise, it could be more efficient by removing redundancy and integrating parameter details. The structure front-loads the purpose but omits essential information.

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?

Given the low complexity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the companyId parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the parameter gap makes the description inadequate for a complete understanding.

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 has one required parameter (path with companyId), but the description offers no explanation of what companyId represents or how to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantics entirely undefined for the agent.

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 'List company invites' as both title and description, identifying the verb (list) and resource (company invites). It additionally specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, which clarifies the operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling list operations for other resources, limiting distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context for invocation, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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