get_envelope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work by decoding the returned recipient fields (embedded, signingOrder, activatedAt, autoSign, sendSignedCopy) that an agent could not otherwise interpret. Gaps remain: it does not explicitly state this is a non-mutating read, nor describe auth requirements or what envelope-level status values exist.

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 return-value summary is front-loaded and the recipient-field explanations are packed into two follow-up sentences, which is efficient given there is no output schema. A few phrases (the trailing autoSign/sendSignedCopy sentence) are dense but each carries real semantic weight.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description compensates well for the missing output schema by explaining recipient-level fields and the embedded/link distinction. It is thinner on envelope-level return content (what 'document progress' actually contains) and on error behavior for unknown or deleted envelope IDs.

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?

There is a single parameter (envelopeId) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input and the description adds nothing about it. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does all the work and no additional format or provenance notes are offered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve the current state of an envelope') and enumerates what comes back: status, document progress, per-recipient signing status. It differentiates from create_embed_link but never contrasts with the neighboring get_recipient / list_recipients tools, so an agent must still infer which retrieval tool to pick.

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?

There is one explicit routing hint: for embedded recipients that lack a signing link, use create_embed_link instead. Otherwise there is no stated when-to-use vs get_recipient/list_recipients, and no mention of preconditions such as whether the envelope must be sent first. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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