Get envelope details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior such as download links being valid for only 24 hours. It also discloses the scope of the returned data without contradicting the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs the key result fields and link expiration into a compact form. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description provides a thorough inventory of what the response contains, including link validity. It could mention the sensitive nature of include_contact_details, but that is already documented in the schema and is an enhancement rather than a required gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both envelope_fingerprint and include_contact_details. The description does not add extra parameter-level guidance, which is acceptable baseline because the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Full detail for one envelope'. It enumerates exactly what is returned (parties, roles, signing status, documents, fields, download links, audit history, metadata), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_envelopes or get_template.

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 phrase 'for one envelope' clearly frames this as the single-envelope detail lookup, in contrast to list_envelopes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so the guidance is clear context but not fully explicit routing.

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