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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the response contains live signing URLs and warns they must only be shared with the signer — a genuine confidentiality caveat an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler and the security warning placed after the return description, which is reasonable. However, the second sentence mixes a behavioral warning into an otherwise purely descriptive listing, and the trailing endpoint path adds little for an agent.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned field attributes (type, page, position, signer, required, signing options) plus the signing URLs. Combined with the confidentiality caveat, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

With a single param and 100% schema description coverage (including pattern and accepted docid variants), the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the framing that the document is an 'uploaded document', not new detail on the docid argument. Baseline 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?

States a specific resource (form descriptor of an uploaded document) and enumerates what it contains: signature/form fields with attributes and per-signer signing URLs. An agent can tell this apart from oksign_get_document_metadata, but the description never explicitly contrasts the two, so the sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 purpose implies when to reach for it (you need field layout or signing links), and the security warning about URL sharing is a useful usage note. But there is no explicit when-to-use/how-it-differs-from-alternatives guidance versus oksign_get_document_metadata or the list_* tools.

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