use_case_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the behavioral profile is well-covered. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the output (useCaseId for another tool) and the definition of use cases, which goes beyond the 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 unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second defines key terminology, and the third explains the output's role. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description explains the return value usage (useCaseId for signature_request_create) but does not detail pagination or the page parameter. Given no output schema, more completeness about the response structure would be beneficial, but the description is adequate for basic usage.

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%, yet the description does not mention any parameters (companyId or page). The agent receives no guidance on what companyId represents or how to use the pagination object, which is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool lists available use cases, defines what use cases are (allowed signature workflows and document types), and specifies that it returns useCaseId values needed for signature_request_create. This differentiates it from sibling tools like signature_request_create, which requires the output.

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 indicates when to use the tool (before signature_request_create to obtain useCaseId) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear given the sibling list.

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