get_signnow_api_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is for looking up documentation (implying read-only), but it does not describe return format, pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The description is too thin to be transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every sentence contributes meaningful context, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks any detail about what kind of API information can be queried or how the documentation is structured. It is minimally complete but leaves room for clarification.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'query' parameter already described as 'Query string to search for API information'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage, the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SignNow API'), and clarifies that it provides API usage documentation. It effectively communicates the tool's scope, though it is somewhat broad ('information' could be more specific). No sibling tools exist, so differentiation isn't applicable.

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 for retrieving API documentation via a query string, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but only implied from 'documentation for API usage'.

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