signature_certificate_generate

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

The description discloses that this 'triggers generation and returns the result in the same call,' which is a key synchronous behavior beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't detail side effects like whether repeated calls create duplicates or if any state is marked, though annotations already indicate non-idempotent and non-read-only.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, usage timing/prerequisite, and differentiation from an alternative. Each sentence earns its place, no fluff, with the key information front-loaded.

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 simple 1-param schema with an output schema and all-false annotations, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what it returns, and how it differs from another approach. It doesn't explain domain-specific 'well-signed' or failure modes, but that's minor for the tool's complexity.

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 single parameter signatureRequestId is 100% covered by the schema description ('MANDATORY. UUID... Obtain from create_signature_request'). The tool description repeats the prerequisite but adds no new semantic detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generates the well-signed appearance certificate document for a signature request.' It clearly identifies the action and object, and the final sentence contrasts this tool with EAD Enterprise's GET-based equivalent, distinguishing it from related generation/polling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use once every signatory has signed (check with get_signature_request).' It names the prerequisite chain 'create_signature_request → signatureRequestId' and provides an alternative comparison, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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