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 locking side effect ('items lock while the sign-off waits'), the unlock path, and who signs by default. It omits whether the signer is notified, what permissions the caller needs, and what state the checklist lands in after signing.

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?

Three tight sentences: action and payoff first, prerequisite second, state/lifecycle caveat last. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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 mutating, side-effect-heavy tool with no annotations and a 4-param schema, the description covers the essentials, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Gaps are notification behavior and caller permissions.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates for the undocumented signer_role enum by explaining the default ('the customer by default, or a shop member'). link_days and signer_email are already documented in the schema, and checklist_id is self-evident.

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 ('Ask for a sign-off on a finished checklist') plus the outcome ('get the signing link'), which separates it from the checklist CRUD siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby forms_requestSignOff or signatures_request tools, so the agent must infer the boundary from the resource 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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('Every required item must be ticked') that tells the agent when the call will succeed, and names the escape hatch ('signatures.cancel unlocks'). It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer signatures_request or forms_requestSignOff instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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