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

With no annotations, the description does carry some behavioral load: it discloses that a link is created, that the signer defaults to the customer with shop members as an option, and that the stored PDF is signed 'exactly as submitted' (immutability). It omits whether the signer is notified, whether prior sign-off links are invalidated, required permissions, and revocation paths, which matter for a mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the deliverable, with no filler. The only inefficiency is the ambiguous '(owner or office)' aside, which costs a clause without adding usable information.

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 so return shape needn't be explained, and the core action is covered. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and half its parameters undocumented in the schema, the description leaves out side effects (signer notification, link revocation, permission requirements) that an agent needs before calling it.

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 50%: link_days and signer_email are self-documented, while form_id and signer_role are not. The description partially compensates by explaining the signer_role default ('customer by default, or a shop member'), but says nothing about form_id requirements (must be a submitted form, UUID) or the link expiry parameter.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Ask for a signature on a submitted form') and the immediate result ('get the signing link'), which an agent can act on without opening the schema. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical signatures_request or checklists_requestSignOff siblings, and the parenthetical '(owner or office)' is left unexplained.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'on a submitted form', which hints at a prerequisite but never states it as a rule. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to signatures_request/signatures_newLink, which appear to cover overlapping territory.

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