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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: read-only operation that spends no quota, requires a Kamy API key with signatures:read scope, and without a key returns dashboard setup instructions. It also specifies the response shape { templates, total, limit, offset }.

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?

Four sentences that each earn their place: purpose + ordering, sibling differentiation, field-level details + referral to get_signature_template, usage as a preset ID, and auth/quota/return type. Front-loaded with the core function, no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers return type, authentication, quota impact, and distinguishes from sibling list_templates. With simple pagination parameters (limit, offset) already well-documented in schema, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for limit and offset. The description adds context about the returned data structure (fields included and excluded), pagination semantics (offset, limit implied), and how to use the results. This goes beyond schema to explain the meaning of the list output and its relationship to other tools.

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 lists reusable e-signature presets (saved field placements, etc.) ordered newest first. It distinguishes itself from list_templates, which is for the document catalog used by render_pdf. This provides a specific verb-resource pair and differentiates from siblings.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with list_templates, explains what fields are returned, directs users to get_signature_template for full details, and advises using the returned id in create_signature_request's signatureTemplateId. This gives clear when-to-use, what-not-to-expect, and integration guidance.

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