get_embed_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions generating a URL for embedding but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether the URL is time-limited, or what happens on failure. For a tool that likely involves authentication and operational constraints, this is insufficient.

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 a concise explanation of usage. Both sentences are necessary and add value without redundancy, 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 (generating URLs with potential auth needs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what and why but misses behavioral details like response format or error handling, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (envelope_id and recipient_id) adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of omitting recipient_id, meeting the baseline for high 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 ('Generate an embeddable signing URL') and the resource ('for an envelope'), with additional context about its use ('embedded in an iframe for in-app signing experiences'). It distinguishes from siblings like download_signed or void_envelope by focusing on URL generation rather than envelope manipulation or retrieval.

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 implies usage for in-app signing experiences via iframe embedding, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_envelope or check_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's purpose.

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