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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It correctly identifies the action as a create-operation, but omits critical details such as side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or response behavior. The description does not go beyond stating the obvious mutation.

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—two sentences that immediately state the purpose and then reinforce it with an authoritative note. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the action.

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 six parameters, a nested body object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-equipped. It does not explain the expected return value, error cases, or how the body should be structured beyond the API endpoint. For a complex write operation, more behavioral and usage context is needed.

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 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema descriptions are adequate.

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 action: 'Apply to a Lever posting' with the specific API endpoint. It uses a distinct verb+resource pair and mentions the documented create-application path, setting it apart from sibling tools like create_opportunity or get_posting.

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 phrase 'This is the documented create-application path' implies this is the intended method for applying to a posting, providing clear context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the purpose is distinct enough that no exclusions are necessary.

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