get_envelope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the envelope doesn't exist. For a tool that retrieves potentially sensitive envelope data, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving detailed envelope data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It specifies what information is returned but not the format, depth, or potential limitations. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, more context about the retrieval operation would be beneficial.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'envelopeId' documented as 'Envelope UUID.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific envelope including status, recipients, documents.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('envelope'), and scope of information returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_envelopes' or 'get_account' beyond the singular vs. plural distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an envelope ID), contrast with 'list_envelopes' for bulk retrieval, or specify scenarios where this detailed view is appropriate versus other envelope-related operations.

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