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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: a hard rate limit of one call per 3 minutes with 429 otherwise. It also scopes results to API-uploaded documents, which affects what an agent will and won't find.

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?

Purpose and endpoint are front-loaded and the rate-limit warning is placed where it will be read before invocation. The middle field enumeration is a long run-on list, but with no output schema it earns most of its space.

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, so naming the returned fields (docids, signer, signature counts, credits, timestamp) is legitimately compensating value, and the rate limit and API-upload scope round it out. The main remaining gap is sibling differentiation against the active-documents listing.

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 start/end/limit/offset semantics are already fully documented, including the next_offset paging hint. The description reinforces the window-sizing constraint but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: documents uploaded through the API signed between two moments, and even maps to the endpoint GET /v1/documents/signed. It implicitly separates itself from oksign_list_active_documents by emphasizing 'signed' and 'between two moments', but never names that sibling or contrasts the two explicitly.

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?

'Keep the window short' plus the once-per-3-minutes constraint gives operational guidance on how to call it, which is useful. However, it never says when to choose this over oksign_list_active_documents or oksign_get_document_metadata, so sibling selection is left to inference.

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