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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: unsent drafts are included unless a status filter selects a session status, date filters are inclusive on created_at, limit is capped at 50, and Authorization: Bearer zs_... is required. No contradiction with 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?

Everything in the description is actionable: purpose first, then filters, then the important unsent-drafts caveat, then downstream payload fields, then auth. No filler or restatement of 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?

With an output schema present and optional parameters only, the description is nearly complete for a list/search tool. The only gaps are pagination/offset semantics and the slightly vague phrase 'session status', but an agent can still select and invoke this tool confidently.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for status (all valid values), q (substring targets), date_from/date_to (ISO-8601, inclusive), and limit (max 50). Only offset lacks explicit semantics, relying on its schema default.

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?

Opens with 'Search the caller's envelopes' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also names downstream tools (remind_envelope, get_envelope_status), which helps distinguish this list/search function from those single-envelope actions.

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 clear context: this is the search entry point for the caller's envelopes, and the returned fields are explicitly tied to remind_envelope and get_envelope_status. It does not state explicit exclusions such as 'for templates use list_templates', so it stops short of full when/not guidance.

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