Sign — Consulter le statut d'une signature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation by using 'consulte' and lists possible status outcomes. However, it does not specify the return format or any side effects, though none are expected for a status query.

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 is a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 simple status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and status examples. It does not specify the structure of the response (e.g., returns a string or object), but the status list provides partial completeness. Almost adequate.

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?

The schema already describes the single parameter 'document_id' as 'ID du document de signature.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool consults the progress status of a signature request, listing examples of statuses (pending, signed, rejected). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sign_cancel_document (cancels) and sign_send_for_signature (sends request).

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 description implies usage for checking status but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like sign_download_signed_document (after signing) or sign_validate_signature (validate a signature). No when/not-to-use conditions are provided.

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