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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only check but does not state return format, error behavior for invalid envelope IDs, or what 'signed' means (e.g., all signers complete). This is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-check tool.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the lack of annotations, output schema, and usage guidance leaves gaps. The description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, status object) or how the result should be interpreted, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke and act on reliably.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the envelopeId parameter beyond its name. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value such as where to find the ID or what format it should take.

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 clearly states the tool's function: checking whether a DocuSign document has been signed. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sending or voiding signatures, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the related get_docusign sibling.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_docusign, send_for_signature, or void_envelope. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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