signature_participant_list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds return fields and prerequisites, but omits pagination behavior despite page parameter in schema. Minor omission, but overall good.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides prerequisites and return info. No fluff, 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?

Returns info is described (roles, contact details, signing status), and required inputs are explained. Missing pagination behavior and documentId purpose, but for a list tool with schema showing these, it's fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains requestId and caseFileId as IDs from previous steps, but does not describe page (nested object) or documentId. Partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 it lists participants of a signature request, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like signature_participant_create (create) and signature_request_get (get request), and lists return fields.

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?

It explicitly mentions required inputs (requestId and caseFileId) and their origin from previous creation steps, giving clear context. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but is adequate for a list tool.

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