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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes further: it discloses the 10-result cap, newest-first ordering, the returned fields, the no-filter behavior, and an authentication prerequisite ('Needs Portant connected with sign-in'). No output schema exists, so this return-shape detail is genuinely load-bearing.

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?

Three tight sentences: search scope and trigger first, result shape and defaults second, next-step routing last. Front-loaded and no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still supplies the return fields, result count, ordering, default behavior, and auth requirement, and it hands off to the correct follow-up tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the matching rules (case-insensitive title fragment, exact email match) are already documented. The description still adds value by framing the parameters as combinable ('or both') and describing the zero-parameter behavior, which the schema cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (the user's own signature requests) plus the two search axes (signer email, title fragment) and the scoping constraint 'own'. It is clearly distinguishable from get_signature_status or download_signed_pdf, which operate on an already-known request_id.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('when you do not have the request_id, for example in a new chat'), the no-filter fallback, and routes the agent onward to get_signature_status, cancel_signature_request, or download_signed_pdf once a match with stored: true is found.

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