Verify document signatures

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds critical context: legally-binding signature request, quota consumption, and special credential requirements, which are beyond annotation information. No contradiction.

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 sentences, but the first is a warning that adds important context. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded, though the warning could be slightly shorter.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of signatures, status). For a verification tool, this is a significant gap. The description also lacks details on error handling or pagination.

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 has 2 parameters with only 50% description coverage (documentBase64 described, filename not). The description does not provide additional details for filename or clarify usage beyond what the schema already states. For low coverage, description should compensate, but it does not.

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?

Description clearly states the tool inspects an uploaded PDF for embedded signatures. The verb 'Inspect' and resource 'uploaded PDF' are specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_envelope, which likely verify other aspects.

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 explicitly warns about consequential nature, requires human confirmation, and lists prerequisites (PRODUCTION credentials, verification:write scope, quota consumption). It also notes unavailability in HML. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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