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

The description discloses that the tool waits for processing (hinting at polling) and that signers can be reused, and that it creates an assignment. This adds context beyond the sparse annotations (which only include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). However, it does not disclose side effects like email notifications to signers, failure modes, or non-idempotency (though annotations indicate idempotentHint=false). It does not contradict any annotation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and the key workflow steps. There is no wasted text or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides a high-level workflow that covers the main steps. It does not describe the return value, error handling, or idempotency specifics, but the schema is detailed and the annotations cover some flags. It is adequate for an agent to understand the operation, though it could benefit from mentioning that signers will receive email invitations or that the operation is non-idempotent.

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 all 8 parameters are documented with descriptions. The description adds a little extra context, such as 'create or reuse its signers' relating to the signers parameter behavior, and 'wait for processing' relating to polling parameters. These are minor additions; the schema carries the primary semantic load. Baseline 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 states a specific multi-step operation: upload a PDF, wait for processing, create or reuse signers, and create a virtual signing assignment. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_document_from_template (which uses a template) and get_document (read-only). It is not a tautology and provides a clear verb+resource.

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 workflow description implies when to use it (when you have a PDF to send for signature), but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. For example, it does not mention that for template-based documents you should use create_document_from_template, or that for checking progress you'd use get_signing_progress. Usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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