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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Show', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, whether special authorization is required, or what the response format will be. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent of behavioral expectations.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no fluff, no redundancy, and all words earn their 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?

For a simple introspection tool with no input schema and no output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns ('which tool families and API permissions are available'). This is sufficient for a basic understanding, though it could have explicitly stated that it returns a list or object and is read-only.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-level meaning because there are none to add, and it correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('Lever control-plane tool families and API permissions'). This distinguishes it from the many CRUD operations on opportunities, postings, users, etc., as a meta/introspection tool. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, its unique purpose as a capability discovery tool implies it should be used to check available permissions before calling other tools. No alternatives are named because none are needed, but there is no explicit usage context or exclusion.

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