Show A Signature

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and specifies the endpoint. It does not elaborate on pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in schema) or other side effects. 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 four sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing details. It is concise without extraneous information. Could be slightly more compact but is effective.

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 tool with good annotations and schema coverage, the description covers purpose, required parameters, and endpoint. No output schema is provided, but the description notes it returns a JSON object. Contextually 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description only reiterates that project_id and id are required, which is already in the schema. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 details for Field Productivity records using identifiers. It specifies the endpoint and required parameters. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the company version, the name and context imply project scope.

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 tool to fetch full details of a specific record by identifier. It does not provide guidance on when to avoid it or mention alternatives like 'show_a_signature_company'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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