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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by enumerating the full document status enum and describing signeeDetails fields, including the important signatureStatus naming distinction and cooldown semantics. It also explains field values precisely, which is valuable without an output schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent detail is dense but relevant. Enum values and field paths are clearly formatted, and the nested cooldown explanations earn their place because there is no output schema to document them.

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?

Without an output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the response contract. It covers all status values, signeeDetails fields, signatureStatus values, and cooldown semantics, which is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter documentId is adequately described in the schema as 'Unique identifier of the document.' The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but none are necessary given the complete 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific document'), and specifies that it returns 'detailed status and metadata' plus 'per-signee signing status.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_document_fields, get_draft, and list_documents without ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the verb and the return description.

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