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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond it: results are sorted 'newest first' and the endpoint is paginated, plus the raw API path. It stops short of describing pagination limits or auth requirements, which the schema partially covers.

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 terse sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose, ordering, and pagination front-loaded before the API note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only paginated list tool with fully documented parameters and an annotation covering safety, this supplies purpose, ordering, and pagination. Since no output schema exists, it could say more about the returned shape, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 all four parameters (page, query, page_size, account_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (signature requests) with scope ('the account can access') and even names the backing API endpoint. It implicitly contrasts with the singular get_signature_request sibling but never says so explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'the account can access' and the paginated framing, so an agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_signature_request / search-style alternatives, and no mention of when to pass account_id.

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