signature_document_download_url_get

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it only returns the link 'once every signatory has signed' and requires confirmation of signing completion, which is a state precondition. This goes beyond the basic safety profile and clarifies the operation's dependency on signatory completion.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, prerequisites, and disambiguation. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no fluff or redundant information, maximizing information density.

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's simplicity and that an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, preconditions, and differentiation from similar tools. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema handles that, and the provided context is complete for a download-link retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds further meaning by mapping each parameter to its source: 'create_signature_request → signatureRequestId, add_document_to_signature_request → documentId'. This explains provenance and prerequisite, which is more than the schema provides.

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 function: 'Retrieves the download link for the FINAL, well-signed version of a document'. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('download link'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'signature_certificate_generate' by explicitly noting the certificate is not the signed document.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing: 'Requires: create_signature_request → signatureRequestId, add_document_to_signature_request → documentId' and instructs to 'Use get_signature_request first to confirm signing is complete before calling this'. It also clarifies when not to use it by contrasting with signature_certificate_generate, giving clear usage versus alternatives.

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