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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: it is the 'v2' metadata endpoint, the underlying HTTP route, and a warning that returned field values 'can contain personal data' — a disclosure the agent would not get from structured fields. It does not discuss size limits or error behavior for an unknown docid.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads what is returned, followed by the version and endpoint. The parenthetical PII warning earns its place. Slightly dense packing of return fields, but no filler sentences.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by enumerating the key metadata components. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, that is nearly sufficient; only the shape/nesting of the field-value collection and failure modes for invalid ids are left implicit.

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% and the single parameter's schema entry already explains that docid, source_docid, or signed_docid are all accepted, with an example format. The description's '(pass the signed_docid)' is largely a restatement, though it usefully signals the parameter is mandatory. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 and resource (retrieve metadata of a signed document) and enumerates the payload: filename, size, signature counts/validity, signers, and completed field values. It also pins the exact API operation ('Metadata v2. GET /v2/metadata/retrieve'), so an agent can distinguish it from list-oriented siblings like oksign_list_signed_documents. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to use instead when the agent only has a list-level need.

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?

'pass the signed_docid' implies the tool requires an already-known document id, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from oksign_get_linked_document or oksign_document_exists when it has an id in hand. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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