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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing a failure mode: removal may fail if the document's stage no longer permits signatory changes. It does not say whether removal is reversible or how the failure surfaces, keeping it below a 5.

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 lead sentence for purpose, then a tightly scoped when-block and a one-line failure caveat. Zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before any conditions.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Purpose, triggering condition, identifiers, and the main failure mode are all covered for a simple two-parameter deletion tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the pointer to list-documents for finding the UUID. The description only restates that identification uses document_uuid plus signatory_email, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Remove a signatory from a document.' An agent can distinguish this from create-document-signatory and update-document-signatory by the verb alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with update-document-signatory, which handles the modify case, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'Use this tool when' block gives a concrete trigger (signatory added in error or should no longer sign) plus a hard precondition (they have not yet signed). This effectively encodes a when-not boundary. It never names an alternative tool or states what to do instead when the signatory has already signed.

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