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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful behavior: it consumes plan allowance, sends real invitations/notifications via Email verification, blocks on processing, and retains a document ID on partial failure. It stops short of describing what a successful response contains or any auth/permission requirements.

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 the primary action, then cost constraint, then failure-recovery guidance. Dense but every clause carries actionable information; 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?

For a 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the happy path, the cost/allowance implication, and the partial-failure recovery path. It could say more about what is returned or how signers are matched/reused (left to the schema), but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so every parameter including estimate_only, poll_secs, and max_wait_secs is already documented in the schema; the description only echoes signer name/email and the Email verification mode. 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?

The description names a specific multi-step verb chain (upload, wait, invite) on a specific resource (PDF) and identifies the signer identity fields, clearly distinguishing it from the bare assinafy_upload_document sibling.

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?

It gives a real usage constraint ('use only recipients the user authorized') and explicitly routes the agent to assinafy_create_assignment after a partial failure rather than re-uploading. It does not, however, state when to prefer assinafy_upload_document or the template-based creation path.

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