Get signature signing link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds context ('existing signature document', 'one per signer') that suggests a non-destructive read operation, but it does not disclose whether the call generates or refreshes links, whether there are side effects, permissions required, or the structure/expiration of the returned links. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 two sentences of high efficiency: the first states the primary function and the second advises the sharing workflow. There is no fluff, and the key details are front-loaded. The word 'signature' appears three times, but the brevity justifies it.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the general purpose and output shape (links, one per signer) but does not specify the output type (string vs list) or any error conditions. The essential workflow is clear enough for an agent, yet the missing structural details prevent a higher score.

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 schema only lists documentId as a string with 0% description coverage. The description indirectly refers to it as an existing signature document, but does not explain how to obtain it, what happens if it is invalid, or any additional context needed. With only one parameter, this lack of clarification weakens the description's value.

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 ('get') and resource ('signing link') for existing signature documents, and even clarifies the link distribution is one per signer. This distinguishes it from siblings like gambot_get_form_link and gambot_create_document_link, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 gives a clear context: acquire links to distribute an existing signature document to signers via WhatsApp/email/SMS. It does not, however, explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools like gambot_create_document_link or gambot_get_form_link, so it stops short of offering exclusions.

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