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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the preview URLs are short-lived and valid for exactly 24 hours, which is important for downstream use.

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 short and front-loaded, with the key action and resource in the first words. It is duplicated in German and English, which adds accessibility but means the English sentence does not contribute new semantic information; still, it remains appropriately compact.

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 read-only listing tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what kind of result to expect (signatures with short-lived preview URLs). The only meaningful gap is the undocumented 'reasoning' parameter and the absence of any explicit statement about the returned list's structure or pagination.

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 a single optional string parameter 'reasoning' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the purpose or expected value of this parameter, so an agent receives no parameter-level guidance beyond the schema's type and optionality.

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 specific verb ('Listet'/'Lists') with a clear resource ('Unterschriften'/'signatures') and a precise source ('Partnerprofil'). It further specifies the output type (preview URL with 24-hour validity), distinguishing it from related tools like signature_upload.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving stored signatures, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or mention exclusion criteria. It gives useful context by focusing on 'stored in the partner profile,' but no direct reference to sibling tools like signature_upload.

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