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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by naming the returned fields (status, title, sent/expiry/signed timestamps), but it does not explain pagination behavior or what a response envelope looks like despite pagination parameters existing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb, resource, returned fields, and the key filter. The trailing 'Stiply API: GET /v2/sign_requests' is marginally useful (endpoint mapping) but borders on filler for an agent that already has the schema.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the filterable statuses, and the shape of returned records. The remaining gap—pagination behavior—is partly covered by schema descriptions, so the definition is adequate for correct invocation.

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% (page, status, orderby, page_size all documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete status values beyond the schema's example list—adding draft and all_signed alongside published, completed, rejected, canceled, expired—which materially helps the agent construct a valid status filter.

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?

Uses a specific verb (List) and resource (sign requests), and parenthetically defines the resource as documents sent for e-signing, which helps an agent understand the domain object. Sibling differentiation is implicit: 'list' vs 'get_sign_request' is obvious, but the description never names an alternative like get_sign_request_by_external_key or get_sign_request_progress.

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 title and list semantics, and status filtering is described. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings (e.g., when to call this versus get_sign_request_progress or list_documents), nor any stated exclusion.

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