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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It states 'Read-only and spends no quota,' which reinforces the read-only nature. It reveals sequential routing behavior: 'Under sequential routing, recipients whose turn has not arrived show status "waiting".' It also discloses auth requirements: 'Requires a Kamy API key with the signatures:read scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.' No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficiently written, front-loading the main action and recipient details. Every sentence adds value (usage guidance, behavioral notes, auth requirements). It could potentially be tightened slightly (e.g., listing recipient fields could be implied), but it remains clear and not overly verbose. 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?

With no output schema, the description fully discloses what is returned: every recipient in signing order with fields (sign_url, status, recipient_order, expires_at, last_reminded_at) plus the envelope's own status and routing. It covers edge cases (sequential routing waiting status). Requires only one parameter with good schema coverage. The description is complete for an agent to safely invoke and understand the result.

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%, and the schema already describes envelopeId as 'Envelope ID returned by create_envelope.' The description adds no additional details about the parameter's format or constraints beyond the schema. It does imply usage context (the envelope should come from create_envelope), but this is already in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 'Fetch one multi-signer envelope with every recipient in signing order,' specifying the verb (fetch) and resource (multi-signer envelope with recipients). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_signature_request, which 'answers that for a single standalone request and returns no recipient list.' This grounds the tool's purpose precisely among many similar tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This is the tool for "who still has not signed?" after a create_envelope send.' It also provides a clear alternative: 'get_signature_request answers that for a single standalone request and returns no recipient list.' This tells agents exactly when to choose this tool over a sibling.

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