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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the bundle is self-contained and offline-verifiable, it enumerates the contents, it explicitly withholds signed URLs/phone/email, and it notes read tier and organization scoping.

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?

Purpose and the id's origin are front-loaded, followed by the return contents and a verification tip. The long field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema, though the sentence is dense enough to be slightly heavy.

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 compensates by detailing what the returned JSON contains and how to verify it independently. Access and safety semantics are also covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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% and the schema already explains the parameter as a UUID from the completion response of a signature task. The description largely restates that origin rather than adding new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (signature bundle) scoped to one signed document, identified by signature assertion id. It is readily distinguishable from generic siblings like get_receipt or get_task because it names the exact artifact and its auditor-verification purpose.

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?

It states clearly where the required id comes from ('the signature_assertion_id inside the response value of a completed signature task'), giving a concrete precondition, and adds a verification command. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, so it falls short of a full 5.

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