Obtener URL para firmar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that account mode requires a browser session and external mode gives an ephemeral link with duration according to user settings. It also warns about terminal usability. However, it does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether calling this creates a signing request), rate limits, or what happens after the URL is used.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and well-structured with distinct sections for each mode and a clear warning. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the complex input schema (7 parameters, nested objects), the description barely covers the essentials. No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe the return value (URL format, expiry, etc.). For a tool with high complexity, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 low (29%), and the description only explains the 'mode' parameter (account vs external). Other important parameters like recipientName, recipientEmail, inviteMessage, sendEmail, and the nested 'placement' object are not described. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.

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 a URL for signing in a browser, with two modes (account and external) distinguished. It uses specific verb 'obtener' (get) and resource 'URL', and the title confirms. Sibling tools like kairo_sign_workflow or kairo_request_external_sign handle different signing flows, so this stands out.

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 explains when to use each mode (account requires login, external is link without login) and warns against using terminal. However, it does not compare this tool to other signing-related siblings like kairo_sign_workflow or kairo_request_external_sign, leaving room for confusion about which tool to choose for a given signing scenario.

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