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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it warns that 100% signatures does not mean certification is finished and frames the tool as a prerequisite before retries. It also discloses what kinds of data each action exposes (status, assignment, signer IDs, artifacts, timeline, delivery history). No contradictions with the 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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the tool's core purpose, then enumerates all four actions in one efficient sentence, and closes with a high-value warning. Every sentence earns its place and no wording is wasted.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description plus schema fully covers what an agent needs: how to invoke each mode, what to inspect before retrying, and the key caveat about certification status. The sibling tools and annotations reinforce that this is the read-before-write inspection step.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, including per-action schemas and descriptive property fields. The tool description adds goal-level meaning to the action choices but does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool finds documents and checks signing progress, and maps each sub-action (list, get, activities, notifications) to a specific resource and purpose. It clearly differentiates the four modes and positions the tool as a read-side inspection tool relative to mutation 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?

The description gives explicit routing guidance: use list to search, get to inspect, activities for timeline, notifications for WhatsApp delivery history. It also states when to use the tool overall: read before retrying a send or following up, which distinguishes it from sending/follow-up sibling tools.

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