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

The description clearly indicates read-only behavior ('leitura') and mentions important details like file URLs expiring in 60 minutes and the optional PDF download for signer logs. It also aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, though it does not mention rate limits or auth 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?

The description is concise, structured into actions with relevant parameters, and avoids excessive verbiage. It is easy to scan and understand the high-level functionality, though the redundancy of mentioning URL expiration for both get and signer_log is minor.

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 description fails to contextualize its role relative to the many sibling tools. It does not mention that zapsign_documents_list and zapsign_documents_get exist, nor does it explain why this tool also offers list and get actions. This omission can confuse an agent about the intended scope and appropriate usage.

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 description lists parameter names and some enum values (e.g., status pending|signed|refused), but it does not explain the meaning or purpose of most parameters like 'account', 'deleted', 'folder_path', or 'include_signers'. Since the schema has no parameter descriptions, the description carries the burden but fails to provide sufficient detail.

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 states the tool is for reading signing documents and explicitly lists three read actions (list, get, signer_log) with their key parameters. However, the tool name focuses on 'signer_log', which creates some ambiguity about whether this is a combined tool or specific to signer log, and the description does not clarify this naming discrepancy.

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 lists actions and filters but does not explain when to use this tool versus the separate sibling tools like zapsign_documents_list and zapsign_documents_get. No guidance is given on choosing between them, making it unclear for an agent when this tool should be preferred.

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