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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool dispatches a document for signature to multiple people, but it does not disclose side effects like creating a signing request, notifying recipients, or whether repeated sends create duplicates. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes either the operation or the intended use case.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and relevant annotations, this description is mostly sufficient. It clearly identifies what to send and to whom, though it could strengthen completeness by noting the relationship to send-reminder-tool and cancel-signing-request-tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both document_id and person_ids already have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: it sends a document to one or more people for electronic signature, and it gives a concrete use case ('team to sign a policy, agreement, or compliance document'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like send-reminder-tool or cancel-signing-request-tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 an explicit 'Use this when...' clause, which gives the agent a clear trigger condition. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as send-reminder-tool for existing requests or cancel-signing-request-tool for cancellations.

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