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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only describes return contents — information already carried by the output schema. It says nothing about read-only behavior, permission requirements, or what happens for a non-existent or cancelled request id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the nested parentheticals ('who, typed name, consent text and its sha256, surface, time') make it dense to parse. Nothing is wasted, but it reads more like a schema echo than a guided instruction.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the essential 'what comes back' shape. However, with no annotations and a 0%-documented parameter, the missing usage and safety context leaves it only minimally adequate for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the sole parameter, signature_request_id, is never mentioned in the description. While the parameter name is largely self-explanatory, the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema documentation (e.g., that it is the request id, not the document id).

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 specifies the resource precisely — a single signature request — and enumerates its payload (document text or stored PDF id plus sha256, and the signature record when signed). The leading 'One signature request' implicitly distinguishes it from signatures_list, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the singular/plural split.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus signatures_list, signatures_request, or signatures_newLink, and no prerequisite context such as where a signature_request_id comes from. The description is purely a payload inventory; selection guidance is absent.

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