Check document status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a read operation (get state). Adds behavioral context: it is a polling surface, returns signer timestamps and decline reasons, and provides audit-trail events—details beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, each earning their place: first sentence defines return values, second provides usage context. No filler.

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 simple input (one required parameter) and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and when to use it. No gaps.

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%, and the description only mentions the parameter implicitly by referencing 'document_id' from siblings. No additional semantic detail beyond the schema's existing description.

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 specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'state of a document', naming detailed return fields (overall status, signer actions with timestamps, audit trail). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by calling it 'the polling surface', contrasting with other tools like remind or download_signed.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: 'call it when the human asks "did they sign?"'. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context clearly implies it's for checking status after sending, not for initiating actions.

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