Sign — Détecter les champs de signature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool analyzes the PDF and returns detected signature locations, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, error cases, or what happens if no tags are found. Basic transparency, but could be more thorough.

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?

The description consists of two short sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, input, and context. No redundant or filler words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input but does not specify the return format (e.g., list of coordinates, bounding boxes) or error behavior. It hints at returning locations but lacks structural details. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% for the single parameter pdf_base64, which already describes its base64 encoding. The description repeats this information without adding new semantics. According to the calibration, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and description adds no extra meaning.

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?

Description clearly states that the tool analyzes a PDF and returns detected signature locations marked with [[...]], specifying the verb 'analyse' and 'retourne' along with the resource 'PDF'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it is used before sending for signature, and there are no similar detection tools among siblings.

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?

The phrase 'avant de l'envoyer à la signature' provides clear contextual guidance that this tool should be used before invoking sign_send_for_signature. While it does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, the implicit usage context is strong enough for an agent to understand the workflow.

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