get_signature_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dependency on create_signature_request and the 'legacy top-level name' note, which are useful behavioral cues. No contradictions with 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action. Both sentences carry essential information: what it does and when to use it with a prerequisite. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, a well-documented schema, and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the purpose, usage context, and prerequisite. It could mention potential errors or return format details, but those are standard for such tools and are largely inferred from the output schema.

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 already provides a detailed description for signatureRequestId, including that it is a mandatory UUID and where to obtain it. The description repeats this dependency without adding new syntax or format details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 action: "Retrieves a signature request's details and status by id." It specifies the resource and the identifier method, and the note "legacy top-level name" helps distinguish it from potential newer variants. This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides usage context: "Use to check signing progress after activation." It also states a prerequisite: "Requires: create_signature_request → signatureRequestId." However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like signature_request_list or signature_request_full, so it falls short of full 5.

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