Status eines Signier-Vorgangs (wer hat gesehen/unterschrieben) per id + ownerKey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Vorgangs-id. | |
| ownerKey | Yes | Der bei create erhaltene ownerKey. | |
| withInputs | No | Eingaben mitliefern. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what prerequisites exist beyond the given identifiers. The term 'Status' hints at a query but does not explicitly disclose safety characteristics or return behavior.
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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the simple nature of a status-check tool, the description provides a basic indication of the return content ('wer hat gesehen/unterschrieben'). However, without an output schema or annotations, it lacks details on return format, the optional withInputs parameter, and prerequisites, leaving some gaps.
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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for 'id' and 'ownerKey', so the description adds no additional meaning beyond restating these parameters. The optional 'withInputs' parameter is not mentioned, but schema coverage is high, meeting the baseline.
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 purpose: retrieving the status of a signing process ('Status eines Signier-Vorgangs'), including who has seen/signed. It specifies the key identifiers ('per id + ownerKey') and distinguishes itself from sibling envelope tools that create, send, upload, or void envelopes.
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 description implies usage for checking status after an envelope has been created, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: fax, brief, envelope, template, account, etc. There is no noticeable overlap; even fill_pdf and fill_template are clearly differentiated by type of PDF.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., account_balance, fax_confirm, search_templates). No mixing of conventions or irregular styles.
With 33 tools, the server covers multiple subdomains (PDF, fax, postal, signatures, templates). This is on the higher side but still reasonable for a comprehensive document processing server. However, it could benefit from consolidation.
The tool surface covers core document workflows: fill, sign, scan, fax, mail, template exploration, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., PDF merging or splitting), but most user journeys are supported.
