download_signed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Saves the file to the specified output path', indicating a local write operation, but does not cover other aspects like authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the envelope is not completed. This leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by prerequisites and action details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds necessary information without waste, making it 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 moderate complexity (a download operation with prerequisites), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on error cases, response format, or system interactions. It covers the basic usage but could benefit from more context for robust agent understanding.

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, so the schema already documents both parameters ('envelope_id' and 'output_path') adequately. The description adds minimal value by implying the envelope must be completed, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Download the signed PDF document') and resource ('for a completed envelope'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'download_archive' or 'download_certificate'. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by specifying that 'The envelope must be in 'completed' status', which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'download_archive' for other envelope states), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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