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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already establish safety. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the specific pieces of status returned and the conditional presence of completed_document_id after completion. It also discloses the required Authorization header, which is not captured in the schema.

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?

One concise sentence packs the return payload, the conditional behavior, and the auth requirement with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only status endpoint with an output schema and one required parameter, the description covers the essential behavioral and auth context. The mention of the downstream download_signed_document tool also completes the workflow context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for document_id, and the description does not explicitly define that parameter. However, the parameter is a single required string named Document Id, and the description's context around envelope progress makes its role reasonably inferable. It adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states what the tool reports: envelope session status, per-recipient signing status, and the completed_document_id when available. It also differentiates itself from the sibling download_signed_document by noting the completed_document_id is meant to be passed to that tool.

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 gives practical context: get envelope status first, and once completed, the returned ID feeds into download_signed_document. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the relationship to a named sibling provides strong usage guidance.

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