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

The description adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations: it lists allowed status values, date format requirements (YYYY-MM-DD), sort directions, and the 60-minute expiration behavior for file URLs in the 'get' action. It does not describe pagination behavior or return conventions for a full list, but the provided additions are meaningful and consistent with the 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 text is dense and mostly compact, but it mixes three actions into a single tool that is explicitly meant to be the 'list' action. The '[Flattened action: list]' tag appears almost as an afterthought, and the list of filters is a single string rather than a clean structured description. This is not minimal enough for a focused tool description.

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 12-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination defaults, what fields are returned, whether 'deleted' means include or only deleted, or how 'account' affects the search. Some context is provided via annotations and sibling tool names, but the description itself leaves important gaps for this broad tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is responsible for explaining parameters. It covers several: page, status, folder_path, deleted, signer_email, created_from/created_to, sort_order, and include_signers. However, it leaves some parameters unexplained in context (account, doc_token, download_pdf), and these parameters seem borrowed from the get/signer_log actions rather than clearly for list. That ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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 'Documents in ZapSign (read-only)' and names 'list' as the primary action, with parameters for filtering. However, it also documents 'get' and 'signer_log' actions before the '[Flattened action: list]' note, which creates some ambiguity about the actual scope of this tool. It is still stronger than a vague or tautological description, so it earns a 4.

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 a clear context: use the list action with filters to search/enumerate documents, while 'get' is for document details and file URLs, and 'signer_log' is for audit trails. This gives an agent separating guidance without an explicit 'when not to use' statement. The read-only annotation and mention of 'Leitura' also support the safe usage context.

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