quicksign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting it returns 'full markdown/text content along with metadata', but it does not disclose error cases or rate limits. This is still a valuable addition beyond 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds usage context and return value. No wasted words.

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 simple 1-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers when to use, what it does, and generally what it returns. The mention of 'metadata' is somewhat vague, but it is adequate for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with a descriptive parameter: 'The AI Session ID (returned from push_draft_text or shared by the user)'. The description merely refers to 'session ID' without adding new semantic information, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'full text content of a previously pushed draft' by session ID, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_draft_status (status) and push_draft_text (push).

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you have a QuickSign session/document ID and need to read the current draft text' with relevant examples. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly point to sibling alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining exactly what statuses are returned (session, document lifecycle, template conversion) and the 'converted_to_template' flag, which is valuable beyond the annotation flags. It does not describe rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only check this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose ('Check the full status chain') followed by specific return details and a practical usage example. Every sentence earns its place with no verbosity 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?

For a tool with only 2 required parameters, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, and a typical use case. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly lists all return values, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters: id ('The AI Session ID returned from push_draft_text') and type ('PDF or text draft'). The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('full status chain of a document draft in QuickSign') and explicitly lists what statuses are returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_draft_content (content) and get_handoff_link (link), making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'Use this to follow up on a draft you previously pushed — e.g. "has the owner reviewed that NDA yet?"' This gives context on when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the example and focus on status checking clearly separate it from sibling tools, so guidance is strong.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by explaining what the URL does (opens in QuickSign editor, enables review/send). No contradictions; the description enriches the behavioral context beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by brief usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 simple read-only link generator, the description fully covers the return value (a URL), the use case (owner review), and the next steps. Combined with read-only annotations and a complete input schema, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema fully describes both parameters (id and type) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, aligning with the baseline score of 3 for complete schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a direct link for the document owner to review a draft in QuickSign.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on generating a handoff link rather than retrieving content or status.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to share a review link with the owner so they can review, add recipients, place signature fields, and send. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is specific enough to avoid confusion with siblings.

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

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior: it creates a PDF in QuickSign, the owner reviews it, adds recipients, places signature fields, and sends it for e-signature. It also discloses markdown support and a 500,000 character limit, offering useful context beyond 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 well-structured: a lead sentence stating the primary purpose, a paragraph explaining the workflow, and a final paragraph with format and length guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy. It could be slightly more compact, but it's appropriately sized.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the function returns or what the caller should expect. It describes the workflow but never states the return value (e.g., draft ID, status). While it's a creation tool, the lack of any return information leaves a gap for the agent, especially since sibling tools like get_draft_status and get_handoff_link imply a follow-up path.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by recommending markdown format, listing supported formats (markdown, plain text, HTML), and specifying the maximum character length. This adds practical guidance for parameter values.

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 clearly states the action ('Send a contract or agreement to QuickSign for e-signature') and specifies the resource (contracts, NDAs, agreements). It also lists concrete document types and distinguishes itself from the sibling read/status tools (get_draft_content, get_draft_status, get_handoff_link) by focusing on creating and sending.

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 explicitly says 'Use this whenever a user needs to get a document signed, send a contract for signature, or create any agreement that requires e-signatures.' This provides clear when-to-use context. It does not mention when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the sibling tools are clearly for retrieval/status rather than creation, so the context is sufficient.

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