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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: enable returns input_schema for newly enabled tools, and reconnect is suggested if invocation still fails. It also explains that tools/list only shows enabled tools, which is a behavioral trait not in the annotations. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state that disable/reset may affect other users or sessions, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives action-specific details. Every sentence earns its place, though the final sentence about reconnecting is slightly tangential. It is well-structured with clear action breakdowns.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 actions, 2 params, output schema present), the description covers the key behaviors: what list returns, what enable/disable require, what reset does, and how to handle the returned schema. The output schema exists, so return values need not be fully described. Minor gap: it doesn't mention whether disable affects currently-running workflows, but this is not critical for invocation.

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. It does: it explains the action enum values (list/enable/disable/reset) and the tools parameter format (pass tools=['getsign_...']). It also clarifies that tools is optional for list/reset and required for enable/disable. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be slightly more explicit about the null default.

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 states a specific verb ('Turn ... on or off') and resource ('rarely-used GetSign tools for this server'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that tools/list only includes enabled tools. It also names a concrete use case (email logo upload) and the action variants, so an agent can tell it apart from other GetSign tools without opening the 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?

The description explicitly says when to call it: when you need a tool not in the current list, or to hide one you are done with. It also explains the action-specific behavior (list/enable/disable/reset) and gives a concrete example of what to pass for enable/disable. This is clear guidance with no ambiguity about alternatives.

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