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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by explaining exactly what is destroyed: outstanding signatures stop counting and signing is blocked permanently. That 'signatures given so far no longer count' clause is the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and consequence front-loaded and the recovery path last. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and full schema coverage, this covers purpose, effect, and next step. It does not address error conditions (e.g. an already-signed request) or required permissions, which keeps it just short of complete.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines doc_id fully. The description adds only the framing 'of a document', which reinforces but does not extend the schema; baseline applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Withdraw') and resource ('pending signature request of a document') with the immediate effect ('nobody can sign it anymore'). An agent can distinguish it from create-signature-request and get-signature-request without opening any schema.

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?

Implies the clear scenario (revoke a pending request) and points to the follow-up path ('create a new request to start over'), which routes the agent toward create-signature-request. No explicit exclusions such as what to do if the request is already completed, so it falls short of a full 5.

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