check_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return content (envelope details, recipient signing status, etc.), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as required permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid envelope_id), rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, and the second specifies the output content. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (single required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return values, but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, errors), and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. It's complete enough for basic understanding but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'envelope_id' parameter fully documented as 'The UUID of the envelope to check'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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's purpose: 'Check the current status of an envelope' specifies the verb (check) and resource (envelope status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_envelopes' (list multiple) or 'void_envelope' (modify state), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_embed_url' which might also retrieve envelope details. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing envelope ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or modifying envelopes), or comparisons to siblings like 'list_envelopes' for bulk status checks. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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