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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations by disclosing quota behavior (Free plan 50 calls/month, Company unlimited), a caching anti-pattern, and a permission model: some fields are company-controlled and changeable only on signatoro.com by the owner, with companyControlled.howToChange naming who and where.

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-loads the core purpose, return format and the every-send rule, then layers quota and company-controlled context. Slightly long, and the final instruction about telling the person who changes company parts reads as agent-behavior coaching rather than tool definition, but nothing is padded.

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 no output schema, the description still specifies the return shape (HTML and plain text, ready to append), plus quotas, the company-controlled field set, and the change path. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 100% and the enum is self-documenting, but the description adds genuine semantic content for 'short' (the cold-outreach cut: name, role line, one link) that the schema's 'full (default) or short' does not convey. Above the baseline 3 because it clarifies the mode's purpose, not just its values.

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 (get the saved email signature), names the return formats (HTML and plain text), and distinguishes itself from update_my_signature and create_signature without needing the schema.

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 an explicit call-frequency rule (call on every email rather than caching) and names the alternative for the mutation case (use update_my_signature). It also scopes the 'short' mode to cold outreach, so an agent knows which variant to pick and when.

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