turbosign_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reports the document and recipient states along with a caveat ('where the API returns them'), which adds transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention potential errors, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Check where a signature request has got to') and then expands with concrete output details. Every sentence adds value without fluff or repetition.

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 simple (one parameter, output schema present), and the description effectively explains the return values and how they can be used (recipient ids for resend). It does not mention error scenarios or edge cases, but given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0% (the schema only shows 'document_id' as a string). The description compensates by explaining that the parameter refers to a signature request/document, but it does not describe how to obtain the ID or any format constraints. For a single, obvious parameter, this is adequate but not fully compensating.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a signature request'), and clearly states the tool reports the document's state (pending, completed, voided) and recipient states/ids. This distinguishes it from siblings like turbosign_send, turbosign_void, and turbosign_resend, which perform other actions.

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 implies when to use the tool: to check status and obtain recipient ids. It explicitly ties the output to turbosign_resend ('The recipient ids are what turbosign_resend() needs'), providing a concrete use case. It does not formally list exclusions, but the context is clear.

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