Signing requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces with 'Read-only; nothing is signed', which is a useful guard against an agent attempting a signing action. It also discloses the item shape (document {tool, id, available}), a behavioral detail beyond the annotations, though it doesn't say whether pending and completed items are mixed in one response.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the concrete chaining instruction. No filler; every clause carries usable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return item structure and the follow-up call, which is what an agent needs to act. A minor gap remains around how pending vs. completed entries are distinguished and whether both appear in a single response.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by explaining the semantics of the returned id field and how to feed it into signing_document, which is the only input-shaping information an agent needs here.

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 the resource precisely (digital signing requests / ondertekenverzoeken) and its scope (waiting for you or done), and explicitly differentiates the sibling signing_document as the tool for reading the underlying PDF. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening another 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 makes clear this is the entry point for signing requests and explicitly routes the follow-up action to signing_document via the returned id. It lacks an explicit exclusion statement (e.g., when this is not the right tool), but with no comparable sibling the routing is actionable.

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