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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain behavior beyond that: '100% signed does not mean certification is finished; the signed PDF is ready at status certificated' warns the agent about a state distinction it would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then usage timing, then the certification caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description itself enumerates the return surface (status, assignment, signers with progress, pages, artifacts) and warns about the certification state, which is exactly the context an agent needs to interpret the result.

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 100% and there is a single required document_id parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-sourcing detail beyond 'known document'. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (one known document) and enumerates what it surfaces: status, assignment, signer progress, pages, artifacts. The phrase 'one known document' implicitly contrasts with the list_documents sibling. However, it does not differentiate from the confusingly similar sibling assinafy_show_document, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

Gives a clear situational trigger: 'Read it before retrying a send or following up.' That tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., vs list_documents or show_document) is provided, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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