signature_group_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it returns specific fields and explains the pre-created groups. No contradictions, and the timing note adds value beyond 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 consists of two efficient sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage guidance. No redundant information, earning 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?

Despite lacking parameter explanations, the description covers return fields and usage timing. However, it omits mention of pagination or filtering capabilities, which are important for a list tool with nested filter/order objects. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters but does not mention any of the 5 parameters (caseFileId, requestId, page, order, filter). The agent must infer from names alone, which is insufficient for complex nested objects like filter.

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 verb 'Lists' and the resource 'signing order groups of a CONFIGURABLE signature request'. It also lists specific return fields (id, type, index, documentId), distinguishing it from sibling tools like signature_participant_list.

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 provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call immediately after signature_request_create to retrieve the pre-created index:1 group IDs before adding documents or participants'. This tells the agent when to use the tool and what prerequisite steps are needed, though it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools like signature_group_create.

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