signature_request_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the returned data (status, documents, participants, deadline, history) and prerequisites, but does not contradict annotations. It provides context 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 highly concise with three short sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states purpose, second lists prerequisites, third summarizes returns.

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 (2 params, no output schema), and strong annotations (readOnlyHint), the description provides adequate context: purpose, prerequisites, and return fields. However, it could optionally mention the response structure or format, but overall is sufficient for straightforward retrieval.

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 zero description coverage for its two required parameters. The description compensates by explaining that requestId comes from signature_request_create and caseFileId from case_file_create, adding essential context that the schema alone lacks.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'full details of a signature request', clearly stating the tool's functionality. It distinguishes itself by listing returned elements (status, documents, participants, etc.) and implying its use for checking process state, which differentiates it from sibling tools like signature_request_cancel or signature_request_create.

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 prerequisites: requires signature_request_create → requestId and case_file_create → caseFileId. It states 'Use to check overall process state', indicating when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives among sibling tools.

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