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.