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 still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (signed_docid plus timestamp, or source_docid) and the meaning of an empty result, which is the key ambiguity for an agent interpreting a null response.

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 compact sentences plus the endpoint, with no filler. The conditional structure (given X, returns Y; given Z, returns W) is front-loaded and easy to parse, though the phrasing is slightly telegraphic.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing return values, including the negative case of an empty result. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read, missing only sibling differentiation and any note on whether the lookup crosses account boundaries (openWorldHint suggests it may).

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already says the id may be a docid, source_docid or signed_docid, matching the description's wording. The description reframes the parameter as a bidirectional lookup key, which is mildly useful, but adds no format, constraint or error-handling detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 operation: resolving the link between a source_docid and its signed_docid, in either direction. That is clearly more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as oksign_document_exists or oksign_get_document_metadata, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the three to reach for.

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 describes behavior rather than when to invoke it. There is no statement of when this is preferable to oksign_document_exists (existence check) or oksign_get_document_metadata (metadata fetch), and no guidance on the unsigned-not-yet case beyond the parenthetical.

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