get_envelope_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden for behavioral transparency. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists returned fields, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention potential errors or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, with an 'Args' section and a 'Returns' section. Every line provides necessary information, and there is no redundant or overly verbose content. The 'etc.' in returns is slightly vague but acceptable.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (indicated), so the description does not need to elaborate on return structure. It covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks error-handling details, but for a query tool of this complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 provides only 'envelope_id' as a string with no description. The description adds meaning by explaining 'The envelope ID to query', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. While it doesn't specify how to obtain the ID, this is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 function as 'Get the status and metadata of an envelope', which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_envelope_from_documents or download_envelope_document, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have an envelope_id and need its status/metadata. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context of siblings (e.g., list_envelopes for listing) makes the appropriate usage evident.

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