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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the two modes of operation (workflow vs item), which is useful behavioral information beyond annotations, but it does not discuss potential side effects, permissions, or response structure.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no additional context, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, what constitutes a 'template' vs 'document', or how item_id relates to the scope. An agent might struggle to determine correct parameter combinations without further information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. While it implicitly hints at the 'scope' parameter through 'workflow-level' vs 'item-level', it does not explicitly describe envelope_id, item_id, or the interplay between scope and item_id. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema, leaving parameter semantics vague.

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 ('List') and names the resource ('envelope') with a clear scope distinction ('workflow-level templates' vs 'item-level documents'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like getsign_create_template or getsign_get_workflow, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. There is no explicit context about the scope parameter or when to choose workflow-level vs item-level, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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