Envelopes for a contact

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds value by specifying the output content (status, timestamps, PDF link 'where available') and the empty-list behavior for contacts never sent an envelope. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences front-load the resource and output, then add a useful edge case. No fluff or repetition; every sentence earns its place. The description is well-structured and quickly scannable.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return structure (list of envelopes with fields) and handles the empty-list scenario. It doesn't mention pagination, but that is standard and covered by parameters. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 only 50%: contact_id and include_contact_details have descriptions, but offset and max_results do not. The tool description does not mention any parameters, leaving offset and max_results unexplained. Since coverage is moderate, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters but fails to do so.

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 retrieves a contact's document history (envelopes they are a recipient of) with specific fields: status, timestamps, and signed PDF link where available. It distinguishes from siblings like list_envelopes (general list) and get_envelope (single envelope) by focusing on per-contact history. The edge case of an empty list for a contact with no envelopes adds precision.

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 usage for a specific contact's history, making it clear when to use this tool versus a general list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for all envelopes use list_envelopes). The context is strong enough that an agent can infer the intended use, but explicit sibling routing is absent.

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