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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns signing progress, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether it returns only current signers, historical signers, or the exact progress fields. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It's efficient and to the point. No wasted words, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations. The description covers the core purpose. However, it doesn't mention what 'signing progress' includes (e.g., statuses, timestamps, order) or any edge cases. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 mentions 'an envelope's signers,' which implies the envelopeId parameter identifies the envelope. However, it doesn't specify the format, requiredness, or behavior when the envelope doesn't exist. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter name.

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: 'lists an envelope's signers and their signing progress.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like signature_get_signature_envelope or signature_get_list_signature_envelopes, though the focus on signers and progress is distinct enough.

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 implies usage context: when you need signer-level detail for a specific envelope. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like signature_get_signature_envelope for envelope-level status. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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