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

The 'WRITE:' prefix and the endpoint give some behavioral context, and it does not contradict destructiveHint=true, but it repeats the mutation signal the annotation already carries. It says nothing about whether reminders can be sent repeatedly, rate limits, or what happens if no signers are pending.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the API endpoint as secondary detail. Nothing wasted.

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 single-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers what is sent, to whom, and the underlying call. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens when no signers are outstanding.

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% with a single required sign_request_id that already documents its origin (stiply_list_sign_requests). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for full coverage.

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 ('email a reminder to the signers who have not signed yet') and even names the endpoint, so an agent can tell it apart from stiply_extend_term or stiply_cancel_sign_request. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings by name.

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 target audience ('signers who have not signed yet') implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no note about cooldowns or repeat sends, and no mention of the alternative stiply_extend_term for unsigned signers.

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