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

The annotations are generic boolean hints and provide little behavioral color, so the description carries full disclosure weight. It reveals non-obvious behaviors: automatic tag discovery, one field per tag, one signer per signer key, template-like non-sending behavior, one-time-only sending, and warning-driven retry. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 appropriately sized, with each sentence contributing distinct information: the core action, automatic tag/signer creation, template and one-time-send behavior, and warning recovery. The main action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 covers the full workflow: prerequisites, automatic field/signer creation, template behavior, one-time sending, and warning recovery. The only gap is that with no output schema, it never states the shape of a successful response (e.g., returned document_id), so an agent must infer how to locate and send the created document via get_document.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents upload_id as a 40-character hex string and doc_name as optional with a default. The description mostly restates that upload_id must come from a successful PUT, which the schema already says, and adds little new semantic value for the parameters.

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 first sentence names a specific operation: turning a PDF uploaded via create_upload_url into a GoodSign document, with the PUT as an explicit prerequisite. It also separates itself from send_from_template by stating it does not send anything, which clearly differentiates this tool from its siblings.

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 gives an unambiguous workflow: PUT first, then call this tool, then check with get_document, then send with send_from_template. It also tells the agent when to retry (after unreadable-tag warnings) and when to re-upload the same PDF, leaving no ambiguity about the intended sequence.

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