invitations_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are filtered to unaccepted invitations only, and the call requires organization admin or owner privileges — an authorization constraint an agent cannot derive from annotations. It stops short of describing result shape 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the filtering rule, then the permission gate. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition of the tool name or annotations.

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 there is little to document, and the description covers scope, filtering, and authorization. The only gap is that it never hints at what an invitation record contains (invitee, role, expiry), which matters slightly since there is no output schema.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing filter options the schema does not support.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (pending invitations) scoped to the organization, plus a clear filter (not yet accepted). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like members_list or invitations_resend, but the resource is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it without confusion.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells you it returns pending-but-unaccepted invitations, which acts as a scope exclusion, but there is no explicit 'use X instead when you want accepted/historical invitations' or statement about when a caller should reach for this over members_list. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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