signature_certificate_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the critical detail that the tool is asynchronous and requires polling until documentUrl is available, which is not captured in 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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then lists prerequisites concisely, and ends with return value and async note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter origins, return value, and async behavior. It could mention the format of the certificate or any potential errors, but for a retrieval tool with annotations, this is sufficiently complete.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that each parameter (caseFileId, requestId, documentId) comes from specific previous steps (case_file_create, signature_request_create, signature_request_add_document), providing semantic context missing from the schema.

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 'Retrieves the signed document certificate PDF' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like signature_request_get and notification_certificate_get by focusing on the certificate PDF.

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 lists explicit prerequisites referencing previous steps (activate_signature_request, signature_request_add_document, etc.) and indicates the tool should be used only when the document is fully signed. It also notes async behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the prerequisites serve as usage conditions.

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