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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns status, sign_url, views, geo, and auth_mode, but it does not mention response format, auth requirements, or any operational caveats. The '[Flattened action: get]' note is redundant rather than informative.

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 text is very short but contains repetition: 'Ação: get' and '[Flattened action: get]' say the same thing. It is still front-loaded with the essential read nature of the tool, but the duplicated metadata weakens the structure.

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 tool with one required parameter and clear read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and the optional 'account' parameter is not described, so the description does not make the invocation completely self-contained.

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 has 0% description coverage and two parameters: signer_token and account. The description mentions signer_token as the core keyword/identifier, but does not actually explain what it is or how it is formatted. The optional 'account' parameter is completely omitted, so the description does not compensate for missing schema explanations.

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 this is a read operation for ZapSign signers, with the action 'get' and the resource being signers. It also enumerates the kind of data returned (status, sign_url, views, geo, auth_mode), which distinguishes it from the zapsign_signers_write_* sibling tools.

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 phrase 'leitura' makes it clear that this is a read-only invocation, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus other ZapSign read/get tools or any exclusions. The intended usage is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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