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 discloses that full details require a reason and detail_profile=full, but this information is already present in the schema, so the description adds limited new behavioral context. It does not mention return format, error behavior, or permissions, which would be useful for a retrieval tool.

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 highly concise, with two sentences that convey the core purpose and a key usage detail. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 (3 params, 1 required) and the schema's rich descriptions, the description adequately covers the primary purpose and a critical behavioral nuance. The lack of an output schema means the description does not need to explain return values, though a brief note on what the default operational view returns would make it more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the need for detail_profile=full and a reason. No additional parameter semantics or examples are provided.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('one Lever feedback template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_feedback_templates and create/update/delete variants. The focus on a single resource makes the 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 provides clear context for use: retrieving a single template. It also notes that full details require detail_profile=full with a reason, guiding when and how to request complete data. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., list_feedback_templates for multiple templates) or state when not to use this tool.

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