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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions the GET method and base64 output, but omits critical behavior such as the need for acknowledge_sensitive_data for sensitive files, the reason requirement, and any permission or error 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 a single sentence with a clear verb and resource, no redundant phrasing, and front-loads the key action and endpoint. Every word earns its place.

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 has 6 parameters including a sensitive-data acknowledgment flag and a reason field, yet the description only summarizes the operation. It does not explain return structure, prerequisites, or handling of large/sensitive downloads, making it under-specified for the full 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 schema provides descriptions for 5 of 6 parameters (83% coverage), and max_bytes has min/max/default constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific action—'Download one Lever opportunity file'—and identifies the exact endpoint and response format (base64). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like download_opportunity_resume by focusing on generic opportunity files.

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 such as download_opportunity_resume or download_opportunity_offer_file. The intended context is implied only by the tool name and endpoint, leaving the agent to infer which download tool is appropriate.

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