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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the write side effect (document with lines/totals and before/after job total), the single-use sign_url return, and the hosted-page signing that flips the order to approved. It stops short of failure modes — e.g. what happens when the order is already approved or the caller lacks the role.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the action and its effect come first, the re-send and alternative-link rules come last. Each clause carries distinct information — no 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully explains the returned sign_url and its single-use nature, plus the approval lifecycle. Only the error/permission edge cases are left implicit, a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 67%, with link_days and signer_email already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about these parameters (link lifetime, signer binding) and change_order_id is undocumented, but that parameter is self-evident from context. Baseline 3 applies.

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 — asking the customer to approve a change order — and describes the concrete outcome (document written, sign_url returned, order becomes approved). It also distinguishes itself explicitly from signatures.newLink, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: call again after a cancellation, and use signatures.newLink for a fresh link on an open request. It also names the caller role (owner or office), which removes ambiguity about who may invoke it.

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