List documents

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower; the description does add useful behavior beyond that with the 'newest first' ordering and the note that signer info is attached. It says nothing about pagination behavior, the 25-item default or 200 ceiling, or whether filters combine (status AND externalRef), all of which matter for a list tool.

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 short sentences with zero padding. The core identity (what is listed, in what order, with what content) comes first and the filtering hint second, which is the right front-loading.

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 read-only, no-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is close to complete: it identifies the collection, ordering, included signer data, and the two main filters. The remaining gap is pagination and limit semantics, which an agent calling a list endpoint would reasonably want spelled out.

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%, so the description carries the whole burden, and it clarifies only two of three parameters: status and externalRef filtering. The limit parameter is never mentioned, and the description doesn't say whether the two filters are mutually exclusive or conjunctive, leaving real ambiguity.

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 verb and resource ('Lists documents sent for signature') and immediately distinguishes itself from list_templates and the single-document getters by naming what the collection contains. It also says what each entry carries ('who has signed'), so an agent knows the shape of the payload without opening a schema.

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 second sentence implies when to reach for this tool ('Filter by status or by your externalRef'), which is useful context, but there is no statement of when not to use it, no pointer to siblings like get_document for a single record, and no guidance on paging a large result set.

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