get_envelope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only action via 'Retrieve', discloses the envelope state categories returned, and adds a non-obvious behavioral detail about embedded recipients lacking signing links. It does not overpromise or contradict annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output content; the second adds a valuable caveat and redirects to the appropriate tool for creating embed links. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the agent will get back: status, document progress, and per-recipient signing status. It also covers the embedded-recipient edge case. Error or not-found behavior is not mentioned, but this is a minor gap for a low-risk retrieval operation.

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 already fully documents the single parameter (envelopeId) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Retrieve the current state of an envelope') and specifies the resource and key output facets: status, document progress, and per-recipient signing status. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_recipient and list_recipients, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 use whenever an envelope's current state is needed and provides a helpful pointer to create_embed_link for embedded recipients, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_recipient or list_recipients, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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