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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-idempotent side-effecting operation, and the description usefully adds that the concrete effect is a reminder email. It does not explain the destructive side effect or whether repeated calls send duplicate reminders, but annotations carry much of this burden.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action, target, and condition. It is economical while still conveying the key distinction from the initial signing-request tool.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and meaningful annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main omission is not explaining duplicate-send or destructive behavior, but those concerns are partially covered by the provided annotations.

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 fully describes request_id as 'The ULID of the signing request to send a reminder for,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the connection to a signing request but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the action—'sending them a reminder email'—and the target condition, 'someone who hasn't signed a document yet.' This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling send-signing-request-tool, which would send the initial request rather than a follow-up reminder.

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 phrase 'someone who hasn't signed a document yet' gives a clear contextual trigger for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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