get_envelope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It correctly identifies the operation as a read ('retrieve') and details the output scope (status, progress, per-recipient status). It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval, this is sufficient.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (status, document progress, per-recipient signing status). No further information is needed.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of 'envelopeId'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema is complete.

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 identifies the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'envelope', specifying the included fields (status, document progress, per-recipient signing status). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like get_document (which retrieves file content) and create_envelope/send_envelope (which are mutations).

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 when needing envelope state but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_document for document files). The sibling set provides context, but the description itself lacks proactive direction.

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