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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds operational context beyond those annotations: the default action, the distinct behavior of each action mode, required parameters per mode, and the next tool to call when history is complete. Pagination and error behavior are not disclosed, but the side-effect profile is already covered by annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line summary followed by compact action bullets. Every line adds distinct information about a mode or parameter, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description gives enough to select an action and know which IDs to pass, and the next_tool hint supports workflow continuity. However, with no output schema and eight parameters, it omits return-shape and pagination details, and it does not explicitly state that activity requires board_id. These are material gaps for a multi-mode status tool.

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 meaningfully explains action, envelope_id, item_id, board_id, status, and include_signer_identity. However, page and limit are never described, and status values are only enumerated under the pending action, so parameter coverage is partial rather than complete.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: 'Check signing progress for an item or a Monday board.' The four action bullets then define concrete sub-resources and modes, and the description explicitly names getsign_download_signed_documents as the follow-up tool, helping distinguish this status-checking tool from siblings.

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?

Each action mode is tied to its required inputs, e.g. 'Needs envelope_id + item_id' for history and 'needs board_id' for sessions. The default action is explicitly marked, giving clear context for choosing among modes, though it does not contrast this tool with alternative sibling status tools.

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