Show A Signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and mentions the endpoint, which is additional but not critical beyond annotations.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and includes useful context like required parameters and endpoint. Slight redundancy in repeating 'Field Productivity records' could be tightened.

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 read-only tool with good schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, required parameters, and endpoint. It lacks mention of return format details but says 'JSON object', which is sufficient.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 returns signature detailed information for a specific Field Productivity record, using a verb and resource. The name includes 'company', distinguishing it from the project-level sibling 'show_a_signature_project'.

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 says to use this for fetching full details of a specific record by identifier but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'show_a_signature_project'. The context provides minimal guidance.

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