Signing document

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: the tool returns extracted text capped at 10 MB, requires login, is not a downloadable file URL for `download_attachment`, and is generally available only after signing. These are operational details an agent needs and they do not contradict the read-only, non-destructive 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 front-loaded with the core action and stays compact. Each detail, including the return type, login requirement, sibling-tool distinction, and availability window, carries useful information without padding.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete: it explains the input source, return format, size limit, auth context, sibling distinction, and availability constraints. No output schema is present, but the description covers the relevant return behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents `id` as the signing request id (`document.id` from `signing_requests`). The description repeats that mapping but adds no additional parameter-level syntax or constraints, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: reading the PDF document of one signing request. It names the source field (`document.id` from `signing_requests`) and explicitly distinguishes the tool from `download_attachment`, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear usage conditions: pass `document.id` from `signing_requests`, use it when a signed-request document is available, and do not use it for requests still to sign, withdrawn, or expired. It also names the alternative path (`download_attachment`) for file URLs, making the routing decision explicit.

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