signature_request_list

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 known. The description adds meaningful context about the closeCondition filter semantics, explaining what ALL_REQUIRED and PARTIAL_ALLOWED mean. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral nuance beyond the structured 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The closeCondition definitions are a bit lengthy but add necessary meaning. No fluff; each sentence has a function. It could be slightly tighter, but it is well-structured.

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 complexity (18 parameters), the description is incomplete. It gives one detailed parameter and mentions two others, but does not explain filter interactions, pagination defaults, or sorting behavior. An output schema exists, which mitigates some return-value concerns, but the operational context for using this list tool with many filters is lacking.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It details closeCondition in depth and names 'name or status' as example filters, but 18 parameters exist and the remaining ones are only referenced as 'among other criteria'. This is insufficient for a tool with this many filtering options.

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 starts with 'List signature requests', a specific verb+resource combination. It also explicitly contrasts with lookup by id: 'Use to find a request when you don't have its id', distinguishing it from the get_signature_request sibling.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: when you lack the request id and need to find by name or status. It implies an alternative (get by id) but does not name it explicitly, nor does it discuss when not to use it. This is clear, practical guidance without thorough exclusions.

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