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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: idempotency ('safe to repeat'), canonicality (reads current server state, manufactures no facts), the auth requirement (recipient email + correct company, active company access), and an explicit prompt-injection guard on quoted PDF text.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the alternative routing, but the tail is bloated with boilerplate policy jargon ('Canonicality', 'Idempotency', 'Confirmation boundary') that reads as templated filler and dilutes the actionable guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably well by naming the formation, bundle, review URLs, webSignUrl and nextStep. Prerequisites and safety boundaries are covered; a bit more on pagination/nextPage mechanics would close the remaining 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains the reviewUrl as the founder-shared link, documentId as a returned value to re-call with, and page with its default of 1. Only the _corply_context id/receipt pair is left unexplained.

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+resource: opens/resolves a Corply /sign/ link and returns the signer's bundle, review URLs, webSignUrl and nextStep. It is distinguishable from siblings like sign_bundle or get_linked_package, though the dual mode (link resolution vs. document text retrieval) makes the core purpose slightly diffuse.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before generic intake when the founder brings a signature link,' which names a condition and a competing path. It also gives the follow-up invocation rule (call again with a returned documentId and page) and lists prohibitions (never start a company, regenerate documents, infer consent).

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