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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose ordering ('newest first') and the returned fields ('status and who signed'), which is real value. It omits pagination/default-limit behavior, whether any permission scope is required, and the description never explicitly confirms this is a read-only operation.

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 tight sentences with no filler; scope and ordering are front-loaded before the filtering guidance. Every clause carries 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-format explanation is not needed. However, for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the meaning of 'kind' and the behavior of 'limit' unresolved — two gaps an agent must guess at before calling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: it covers the scoping params (job/customer/shop mapped to job_id, customer_id, shop_id) and names kind, status and subject_id. But 'kind' is an unconstrained free string with no enumerated values given, limit (1–200) is never mentioned, and the relationship between subject_id and the specific *_id params is left ambiguous.

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 resource (signature requests) and the three scopes it can be listed for — job, customer, or whole shop — plus ordering. An agent can distinguish it from mutations like signatures_request or signatures_cancel, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with signatures_get.

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?

Filtering hints ('filter by kind, status or subject_id') imply how to narrow results, but there is no statement of when to call this versus signatures_get, or how a shop-wide listing differs from a job-scoped one. Usage must be inferred from the parameter names.

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