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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes public reports about the signatory, which is useful context beyond the annotation, but says nothing about error behavior or result shape.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler; the core payload and the extra content ('public reports') are both 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should characterize the return value; it gestures at 'public reports' but not their structure, and omits behavior for invalid or missing signatories. Adequate for a trivial single-parameter lookup, but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the schema only types the parameter as a string, so the description must carry the meaning. It does clarify that you may pass either a handle or an id, which adds value, but it gives no format or example for either identifier.

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 resource (a single signatory) and the lookup keys (handle or id), plus the extra payload (public reports). The word 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_signatories, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_signatories or the other read tools, and no mention of what happens if the handle/id is unknown. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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