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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions only the download action and base64 format, but omits side effects, permission requirements, sensitivity handling (acknowledge_sensitive_data), and error behavior. It does not contradict annotations, but it is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Download', and includes the essential attributes. No redundancy or filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return structure, error conditions, or critical invocation details such as acknowledging sensitive data for certain downloads, despite having 7 parameters. An agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 86%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the status condition ('sent or signed') which is already in the schema enum. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the action (download), resource (Lever offer file), conditions (sent or signed), format (base64), and HTTP endpoint. The name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like download_opportunity_resume and download_opportunity_file.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The description only states what the tool does, not when to select it over sibling download tools. The status enum is implied but not presented as usage criteria.

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