list_readonly_invites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds non-obvious details: addresses are not returned (only counts), raw token not stored (only hash). This goes beyond annotations and helps set correct expectations.

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?

Four sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, default behavior, return structure with caveats, and related tool. No redundant words.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter, return structure, and cross-reference. It is fully self-contained.

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?

Only one parameter exists; its schema lacks description (0% coverage). The description fully explains its effect ('includeInactive: true to see history'), which compensates for the schema gap.

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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair: 'List the read-only share tokens'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_readonly_link' (create) and 'revoke_readonly_invite' (invalidate). Default behavior (active only) is also specified.

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?

Describes default behavior and the optional parameter to view history. Explicitly mentions pairing with 'revoke_readonly_invite' for invalidation. Could add explicit when-not context, but the alternatives are clear from tool names.

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