Show A Signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read. The description adds that it returns a JSON object, but does not disclose other behaviors (e.g., error handling, rate limits). No contradiction with 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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage and API details. It is mostly efficient, though the 'Required parameters' line is redundant with the schema, and the API detail could be omitted or condensed. No significant waste.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (read, no output schema, 4 params with schema coverage), the description is adequate. However, it lacks information about pagination behavior, response structure (beyond 'JSON object'), and error handling. The annotations cover safety, but more response context would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description redundantly mentions required parameters (project_id, id) but does not elaborate on their meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain pagination parameters or provide examples. Minimal added value beyond schema.

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 detailed information about a signature, using the verb 'fetch' and specifying the resource ('specific Field Productivity records'). It also provides the required parameters and API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_a_signature_company', relying on the tool name for context.

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 fetching full details of a specific record by identifier, but it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It lists required parameters, which is helpful, but lacks guidance on pagination params or exclusive conditions.

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