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.