get_email_signature

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load. It discloses that the call returns content or an error, which at least signals a failure mode, but says nothing about permissions, whether it is safe/read-only, or behavior for an unknown signature name.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence followed by clearly labeled Args/Returns/Example sections. The example `get_email_signature()` adds little and the Args block largely mirrors the schema, but nothing is long-winded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the single optional parameter is explained. The remaining gap is routing context among the signature-related siblings, which the description never addresses.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that signature_name identifies which saved signature to retrieve and restates the 'default' fallback. It stops short of naming valid values or format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a saved email signature.' An agent can tell this retrieves one named signature rather than listing them, though it never names the sibling list_email_signatures to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the parameter shape: pass a name to fetch one signature, omit it for 'default'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_email_signatures or set_email_signature, and no mention of what happens if the signature does not exist.

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