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

The description mentions 'assina em lote via API (assíncrono)' indicating asynchronous batch signing, but does not disclose other side effects like notifications, document status changes, or failure conditions. Annotations do not add read-only/destructive hints, so more transparency would be expected.

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 a monolithic block listing all signer actions, including unrelated ones (add, update, remove). It is verbose and unfocused, repeating information that belongs to sibling tools, which hampers quick comprehension of the specific sign operation.

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 gives some details about the sign action's data fields but does not clarify which top-level parameters are required or how they relate to the operation. It also lacks return value information (no output schema), leaving the overall context incomplete for a complex write operation.

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 'data' parameter is partially explained for the sign action, specifying fields like signer_tokens and optional selfie_photo. However, the other top-level parameters (account, doc_token, signer_token) are not described at all, and the schema provides no descriptions for any parameters, leaving most of the interface unclear.

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 broadly states 'manage signers in ZapSign' and lists multiple actions (add, update, remove, sign), but does not clearly identify that this specific tool is for the 'sign' action. Since sibling tools exist for add/update/remove, the purpose is ambiguous and not focused on the actual operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools for add/update/remove. The description lacks any mention of when signing is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other signer operations.

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