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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and readOnly=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: send emails each signer, remind emails whoever is due, void cancels for good, and send/remind require confirmation first. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but it meaningfully extends the annotation profile.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the resource scope and then packing each action into a short parenthetical. No sentence is wasted, and the action list remains scannable.

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?

For a six-action, eleven-parameter tool, the description covers all actions and important status semantics. It is somewhat thinner on return values and pagination, but it gives enough context for correct invocation given the schema's high coverage.

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 already 91%, and the description adds action-parameter mapping plus status meanings such as sent=waiting and completed=signed by all. It reinforces which parameters belong to which action, though it does not add syntax details beyond the already rich schema.

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 identifies the resource precisely as documents sent for signing and enumerates every action (list, get, templates, send, remind, void). This gives an agent a clear verb-plus-resource picture and the action vocabulary needed to select the tool.

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?

Each action is paired with its operational purpose: list by status/contactId, get signers and history, templates for saved forms, send to email signers, remind due signers, and void a waiting document. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as templates_manage or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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