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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful ordering trait ('newest first') that annotations do not carry. It says nothing about pagination or result size, and 'Free.' is left ambiguous for a tool the agent may call repeatedly.

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?

Extremely lean and front-loaded on the resource, with no filler sentences. The unexplained 'Free.' is the only phrase that does not clearly earn its place.

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, read-only, two-parameter list tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema covers types/enums/bounds, this is close to adequate. Missing pagination behavior and the unclear 'Free.' clause leave minor gaps an agent may have to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'status' (filter to one status value) but says nothing about 'limit' beyond what the schema already encodes (default 20, max 100). Partial compensation for a two-parameter schema.

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 names the resource (signature requests) and ordering (newest first) plus the optional status filter, which is enough to distinguish it from esign_get (single request) and esign_list_templates (templates). The verb 'list' is only implied, carried by the tool name rather than the description itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus sibling tools such as esign_get or esign_list_templates, and no prerequisites or conditions are given. The trailing 'Free.' hints at something (cost or plan tier) but is never explained.

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