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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (envelopeId and status) and status options ('sent' or 'created'), but does not mention permissions, reversibility, error behavior, or other side effects. This is minimal but useful context.

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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every line conveys necessary information—parameter formats, constraints, and return type—without redundancy or unnecessary fluff.

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 complexity (nested objects, multiple parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers all inputs, output, and key constraints like the exactly-one content source rule. It doesn't mention error handling or edge cases, but for this creation tool the coverage is solid.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: documents with exactly one content source (base64, path, or URL), recipients with signer details, email subject/blurb, and status. This adds far more meaning than the bare schema, which only lists types and required flags.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Create an envelope from documents (not using a template).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_envelope_from_template, making it easy to select correctly.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool by emphasizing 'not using a template', implying it should be chosen over template-based alternatives. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the sibling list makes it obvious. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the content source constraints.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format (dict with envelopeId and status), explains the 'sent' vs 'created' status behavior, and details role assignment structure including optional clientUserId for embedded signing. This gives an agent a clear picture of the tool's effects and outputs.

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 well-structured docstring with a one-line summary, an Args list, and a Returns section. Each parameter has a short explanation, and there is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

The description includes a clear purpose, full parameter documentation, and return value shape. It does not cover prerequisites (e.g., template existence or role matching) or error conditions, but for a tool with this complexity and a visible output schema, the essentials are covered. A small gap in usage context prevents a perfect score.

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 property descriptions are 0% in the input schema, but the description fully compensates by documenting all five parameters in an Args block. It explains the purpose of template_id, email_subject, role_assignments (including nested keys), optional email_blurb, and status with allowed values. This exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 opens with a clear action statement: 'Create an envelope from a DocuSign template.' This identifies the resource (DocuSign template) and distinguishes it from sibling create_envelope_from_documents by specifying the template-based workflow. It is a concise, specific verb+resource statement.

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 does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the phrase 'from a DocuSign template' establishes when this tool is appropriate—when a template exists. It clearly differentiates from create_envelope_from_documents without naming it, providing sufficient context for an agent to select the right tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it discloses the creation behavior, required fields, tab structure, and default email subject behavior. It does not mention error handling, idempotency, or permission requirements, but the detail provided is substantial for a create operation.

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 long but tightly organized with labeled args, bullet points, and a Returns line. Every sentence conveys meaningful detail for complex nested structures, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (3 required params with nested structures, multiple content-source options, and signing-field rules), the description fully explains input semantics, defaults, and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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?

The description goes far beyond the bare-bones schema, explaining each parameter's sub-fields, content source alternatives (documentBase64/documentPath/documentUrl), tab rules, routing order semantics, and optional fields with defaults. This is essential because the schema has no per-property descriptions and 0% coverage.

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 opens with 'Create a new DocuSign template (documents + signer roles + signing fields)', which clearly identifies the verb (create), resource (DocuSign template), and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_templates' and 'create_envelope_from_template'.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to leave name/email empty and fill later via create_envelope_from_template, naming the alternative tool. However, it does not broadly state when to use this over create_envelope_from_documents for one-off envelopes, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by stating the return format ('Dictionary with document content (base64-encoded) and metadata'), but it does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation or describe error handling, permissions, or side effects. The 'Download' verb implies safety but lacks full transparency.

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 extremely concise, with a single purpose sentence and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 simplicity (two required string params, no nested objects, and an output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter roles, and return format. It is complete enough for a straightforward download, though it could mention potential pitfalls like large files or non-existent documents.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by defining each parameter: 'envelope_id: The envelope ID' and 'document_id: The document ID to download.' This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, though the definitions are simple and could be more detailed (e.g., expected format).

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 opens with 'Download a specific document from an envelope,' which clearly states the action (download) and the resource (a specific document within an envelope). This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_envelope_documents, which lists documents rather than downloading content.

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 you have a specific envelope_id and document_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_envelope_documents. No mention of prerequisite steps or exclusions is provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden for behavioral transparency. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists returned fields, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention potential errors or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not highly 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 concise and well-structured, with an 'Args' section and a 'Returns' section. Every line provides necessary information, and there is no redundant or overly verbose content. The 'etc.' in returns is slightly vague but acceptable.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (indicated), so the description does not need to elaborate on return structure. It covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks error-handling details, but for a query tool of this complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema provides only 'envelope_id' as a string with no description. The description adds meaning by explaining 'The envelope ID to query', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. While it doesn't specify how to obtain the ID, this is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 states the tool's function as 'Get the status and metadata of an envelope', which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_envelope_from_documents or download_envelope_document, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have an envelope_id and need its status/metadata. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context of siblings (e.g., list_envelopes for listing) makes the appropriate usage evident.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and describes the return structure ('roles, tabs, documents'), which is helpful. It does not discuss permissions or error cases, but the operation is simple and non-destructive, so this is acceptable.

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 compact and well-structured with a brief purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description clearly states what the tool does and what it returns, with a high-level summary of the output contents. Since an output schema exists, the agent can access detailed field information. The tool is simple, so the description is complete enough for selection and invocation.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter. The description adds meaning by stating 'template_id: The template ID to retrieve,' clarifying the parameter's role. This is sufficient for a single, obvious parameter.

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 and resource: 'Get the definition and details of a specific template.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_templates or create_template by focusing on retrieving a single template's full details.

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 a specific template ID is known, and it explains the required argument. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_templates or when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure about side effects, required permissions, or pagination behavior. The Returns line is too vague to meaningfully enhance transparency.

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 compact and follows a clear Args/Returns structure with no filler. The Returns line may duplicate output schema details, but the overall presentation is efficient and scannable.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, read-only listing) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the core purpose and argument. However, it omits any context on error conditions, authorization, or the structure of returned documents, which could be helpful but may be covered by the output schema.

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?

The input schema defines only envelope_id as a required string with no description. The description adds 'The envelope ID to query,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose but lacks format examples or guidance on obtaining the ID. This minimally compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('List all documents') on a specific resource ('an envelope'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_envelopes or download_envelope_document. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for retrieving documents from a specific envelope, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as list_envelopes or provide exclusions. The intended use case is understandable from context, though not formally guided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It explains the filtering options and return format, but omits details like pagination, ordering, or whether the result is scoped to the authenticated user. It does, however, accurately convey the read-only listing nature.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: a one-line intro, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with three optional parameters and an output schema. The description adequately covers parameters and return shape. It lacks usage context and behavioral details like pagination, but the output schema reduces the burden for return value explanation.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: from_date and to_date get ISO 8601 format examples, and status provides sample values. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it stops short of discussing how filters combine.

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 states the tool's function: 'List envelopes with optional filters.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('envelopes'), which is distinct from sibling tools like list_envelope_documents and get_envelope_status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'optional filters' but does not explain the specific use case or contrast with sibling tools like get_envelope_status or list_envelope_documents.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return type (Dictionary with list of templates and metadata) without addressing permissions, pagination, or whether the list is scoped to the user's account. This is minimal and insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by an Args/Returns structure. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter, and return format. It lacks guidance on when to use the tool, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete. Additional notes on access scope would make it stronger.

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?

The description explains that search_text 'filters templates by name,' adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare type definition. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description is essential and compensates well, though it could add details like case sensitivity or partial matching.

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 states 'List available DocuSign templates' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_template or get_template_definition, which perform different operations on templates.

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 enumerating templates but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no reference to sibling tools or exclusions, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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