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

Discloses important behaviors beyond the minimal annotations: first-use generation and persistence with idempotency, security (verification-locked links, one-time code sent to contact on file), automatic browser verification with no extra calls, omission of unverifiable recipients, and duplication for dual-channel recipients. All of this aligns with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then security, output shape, and caveats. It is long, but every sentence carries unique information and the output format detail justifies the length. Slightly dense with security detail, but not 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?

Covers the full contract: what links are, when to use, how verification works, exact response fields and cardinality (two entries for dual-channel recipients), omitted recipients, idempotency, and the sent-not-draft constraint. No output schema exists, so this description fully compensates.

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 schema gives documentId only a generic description ('Unique identifier of the document'), and coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful constraint: it must identify a sent document, not a draft. It could further clarify what happens with non-existent document IDs or error behavior, but for one param the added semantics are useful.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('unique, self-distributable signing links for a document'), and the exact purpose. It distinguishes itself from the alternative of relying on Formify's email/SMS/WhatsApp invitations, making its identity unambiguous.

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 states when to use it: for signees created with disableInvitationMessage: true or whenever the user wants to distribute links manually. It also states exclusions: only works on a sent document, not a draft, and directs the user to update_signee when a contact method is missing.

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