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.