MCP Server for eSignatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'responds with' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, as it doesn't address permissions, side effects, or response handling beyond listing fields.

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 run-on sentence that lists multiple fields without clear structuring. While it efficiently enumerates what the tool returns, it could be more front-loaded and organized (e.g., separating core details from lists). It's not overly verbose, but the lack of structure reduces readability and could be improved for better agent comprehension.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description provides basic completeness by listing return fields. However, it doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication needs, and without an output schema, it doesn't detail the structure of returned lists (e.g., Placeholder fields). For a read tool with minimal structured data, this is adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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 'template_id' documented as a 'GUID of the template'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain format examples, validation rules, or where to obtain the GUID. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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: to respond with template details including specific fields like template_id, title, labels, created_at, and lists of Placeholder and Signer fields, plus document_elements content. It specifies the verb 'responds with' and resource 'template details', making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'query_contract', which would require more differentiation for a score of 5.

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 when this tool is appropriate compared to 'list_templates' (which likely lists multiple templates) or 'query_contract' (which might query contracts instead of templates). There's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient usage direction.

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