get_signature_request_recipient

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read operation with no side effects, but the description does not expand on return format, error behavior (e.g., not found), or authorization requirements. It provides minimal but unambiguous transparency for a simple read.

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 single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get a specific recipient for a signature request'. It contains no filler, every word contributes to the meaning, and the structure is clean and immediately understandable.

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?

The tool is a straightforward retrieval operation with three fully documented parameters. The description clearly states the purpose, and the schema covers all required inputs. However, because there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned the return value (recipient details) or error conditions. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for selection and basic invocation, but slightly thin on contextual details.

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?

The input schema fully describes all three parameters (request_id, contract_id, recipient_id) with individual descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the word 'specific' aligning with recipient_id. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'a specific recipient for a signature request', making it clear that this tool retrieves a single recipient. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_signature_request_recipients (plural) and get_signature_request (the request itself) by specifying 'recipient' and 'specific'.

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 phrase 'specific recipient' implies you should use this when you already have the recipient ID, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_signature_request_recipients or other alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context beyond the core retrieval need.

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