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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the ambiguity-handling caution and says nothing about pagination, filtering behavior, or workspace scoping beyond what the schema shows. Adequate but thin given the low bar set 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the scope statement is front-loaded and the actionable guidance follows immediately. Nothing redundant with the title or annotations.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing piece: why you'd call it (recipient-to-signer-ID resolution). Return values and pagination are not described, but there is no output schema to lean on, which is a minor gap.

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% with all four parameters (page, search, per_page, account_id) documented inline, so the schema carries the load. The description mentions 'workspace' loosely but adds no syntax, defaults, or filtering detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List the signers of a workspace'), which distinguishes it from assinafy_get_signer (single signer) and the other list_* tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, but the scope is clear enough to select it correctly.

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 concrete when-to-use context ('resolve a recipient to a signer ID') and an operational caution ('ask the user about ambiguous matches before sending'). It stops short of naming get_signer as the alternative for a known ID, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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