Show Action Plan Approver Signature

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true. The description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata and specifies the HTTP endpoint. This is useful but does not significantly extend beyond the annotations. No additional behavioral traits like permissions or rate limits are mentioned.

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 few sentences and includes purpose, pagination info, required params, and API context. However, the redundant and contradictory phrasing ('Action Plan Approver Signature' vs 'Action Plans') reduces efficiency. Every sentence has a role, but the inconsistency costs clarity.

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 no output schema, the description could do more to explain the return structure (e.g., fields in the signature object, pagination metadata format). It mentions pagination metadata but not the content of the array. For a simple read operation with comprehensive annotations, it is adequate but not complete.

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% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description merely lists the required parameters (project_id, plan_approver_id) and mentions pagination (page, per_page) but does not add deeper meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Get the details of an Action Plan Approver Signature' but then inconsistently says 'fetch the full details of a specific Action Plans by its identifier' and 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Action Plans'. This contradiction between the tool's title (signature) and the described output (plans) impairs clarity. Among siblings like show_action_plan and show_action_plan_approver, it is not clearly differentiated.

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 when to use the tool ('fetch the full details of a specific Action Plans') but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternative tools like show_action_plan, show_action_plan_approver, or list_action_plan_approvers. No explicit usage context or exclusions.

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