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

The annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: auth requirements, unsent draft inclusion, inclusive date filtering, limit defaults, and output linkage to get_envelope_status. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is dense but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and then enumerating filters, limits, and special behaviors. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers authentication, filtering, pagination, draft behavior, and the relationship to a sibling tool. With an output schema present and annotations confirming safety, nothing essential is missing 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains status values, q substring semantics, ISO-8601 date formatting, inclusive created_at filtering, and limit max/default. Only offset is left implicit, but its purpose is inferable from the pagination context.

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 the operation ('Search the caller's envelopes') and specifies the resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that it returns document_id values for use with get_envelope_status.

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 provides strong usage context by detailing available filters, pagination limits, and the relationship to get_envelope_status. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the scope and downstream use case are clearly implied.

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