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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavior: content trees are omitted by default to save tokens and has_content/has_draft_content signals remain. It discloses the pagination model as well. It stops short of describing return shape, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then definition, then scope, then the content toggle. The definitional sentence earns its place because 'signature' is overloaded in this sibling set, though the description runs slightly long for a simple list 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, scope, pagination, and the content-omission tradeoff. It is essentially complete for an agent to call the tool correctly, with only a missing explicit sibling-routing rule as a gap.

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 the schema already documents page, limit, include_content, auto_paginate, and max_pages in full. The description's mention of pagination and the include_content flag largely restates what the schema already says, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("List the workspace's email-signature templates") and disambiguates the domain term by defining what a Scribe 'signature' is. The scope note ("v1 returns the workspace's primary templates") separates it from siblings like list_signature_variants and list_signature_installations.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it and one concrete routing decision (pass include_content:true to fetch the block trees). It never names an explicit alternative or a when-not condition, but the scope clarification effectively frames its place among the many signature-related siblings.

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