SignSimple

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return data (overall state, per-recipient progress, signed PDF URL) and the API key requirement, making it clear this is a read-only check. It does not mention error handling, but 'Check' implies non-mutating and 'once complete' hints at conditional URL availability.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then specifics. It is concise and every word earns its place, listing status categories and output details without fluff.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and the context of use. Minor gaps include behavior for invalid envelope_id and explicit mention of when the download URL is available, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter environment_id, with its own description referencing send_for_signature. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Check' and identifies resource 'status of a document previously sent for signature'. It details the status categories (sent/completed/declined/expired/voided) and per-recipient progress, clearly differentiating from siblings list_documents, list_templates, and send_for_signature.

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?

Implies the tool is used after send_for_signature to track progress. The context 'previously sent' is clear, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with list_documents. Provides a prerequisite (API key) but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the limit (25 most recent), the output contents (status and signed-PDF URLs when complete), and the authentication requirement (SignSimple API key). It does not mention error handling or potential empty results, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the API key requirement is stated clearly at the end.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the action, the scope (25 most recent), the output fields, and the auth prerequisite. It could mention what happens with no documents or errors, but that's not a significant gap for this simple read operation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds context about the required API key, which is not a parameter but an external requirement. According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 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 the verb 'List' and specifies the resource as 'the 25 most recent documents sent from the connected SignSimple account', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_document_status (single document status) and list_templates (templates). The scope is precise and actionable.

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?

It provides clear context by specifying it lists the 25 most recent documents and includes status and signed-PDF URLs, implying use when recent documents are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format ('info page and direct PDF URL'), content nature ('free, professionally drafted'), and authentication requirement ('No API key needed'). It does not mention side effects, but as a list operation, the behavior is clearly read-only and adequately transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides essential information. It avoids redundancy and is highly efficient, making it an excellent example of concise yet complete tool documentation.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, how to use the return value with send_for_signature, and the authentication context. No critical aspects are missing for an agent to invoke and utilize the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the list returns rather than parameter details, which is not needed. No parameter information is required, and the description adds meaningful context about how the output is used.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'SignSimple's free, professionally drafted document templates', with specific examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on templates versus documents, and its mention of passing PDF URLs to send_for_signature reinforces its unique role.

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 clear context: this tool supplies templates that can be used with send_for_signature by passing the returned PDF URL. It also notes 'No API key needed', which is a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives to other sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that recipients receive secure signing links, fields are placed automatically unless custom fields are given, and an API key is required. It also notes the free/unlimited nature, which is useful context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose, followed by procedural details, template integration, and the API key requirement. Every sentence contributes new information with no filler, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers key prerequisites (API key), parameter usage (document_url vs document_base64), and integration with list_templates. It lacks information about return values or error handling, but these are not typically required when output schema is absent and the action is primarily a send operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining the relationship between document_url and document_base64 as alternatives, and explicitly mentions passing template PDF URLs as document_url. It also clarifies that recipients are the signing parties, enriching the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 tool sends a PDF for legally binding electronic signature via SignSimple, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools (get_document_status, list_documents, list_templates) by defining its send action, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool, such as requiring a SignSimple API key and referencing list_templates as a source for PDF URLs. While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer proper usage alongside sibling tools.

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