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

The annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, though 'to a specific signer' usefully scopes the action. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that states the action and the target. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions and annotations covering side effects, the description is largely sufficient. The main missing piece is an explicit note that this is for resending after an initial signature request, which would further disambiguate it from the sibling send 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%, so all three parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It offers no hints about relationships between the three IDs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resend the signing notification to a specific signer.' It clearly communicates the operation and the target, distinguishing it from initial sending at a basic level. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the closest sibling 'assinafy_send_document_for_signature', so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_document_for_signature or reset_assignment_expiration. It does not state prerequisites, when a resend is appropriate, or when one of the siblings should be chosen instead. The 'resend' wording implies prior sending but leaves the decision to inference.

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