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

Even though readOnlyHint=true already covers safety, the description goes well beyond by disclosing what is returned for each entity type, that timestamps are unix epoch seconds, that field entries are structural only, and that signer-entered field values are never returned. This is precisely the behavioral detail an agent needs when there is no output schema.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the template versus sent-document behavior is organized logically. Every clause contributes non-redundant information, making this appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 single-uuid detail fetch with no output schema, the description fully covers return expectations for both entity types, timestamp format, the structural nature of field entries, and the explicit exclusion of signer-entered values. This is complete enough for an agent to call the tool and interpret its response without surprises.

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 input schema already documents uuid at 100% coverage, including its source (list_templates or list_documents). The description adds the distinction that a single uuid may refer to either a document or template, but this is a minor reinforcement rather than substantial new meaning, so the baseline schema-driven score 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch full detail') and a specific resource ('one document OR template by uuid'), and it clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools like list_documents and list_templates by focusing on a single entity's full detail. The dual document/template scope is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: check a template's signer keys before calling send_from_template, and check a sent document's per-signer progress when assessing status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select this tool over list_documents and list_templates for detail lookups.

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