Retrieve one Lever profile form template. Full instructions and fields require detail_profile=full with a reason.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Required when detail_profile requests contact, content, values, or full details. | |
| detail_profile | No | operational returns an operations view; full returns the raw endpoint payload. | operational |
| form_template_id | Yes | Lever form template ID. |
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 detail_profile=full and a reason, which is helpful. However, it does not mention safety profile (read-only), authentication requirements, or potential errors, though 'retrieve' implies a read operation.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key constraint. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining return values and behavior. It only states that it retrieves a template and mentions the full-detail requirement, but does not describe what the operational vs. full response contains. Given the schema fully covers parameters, the description is minimal but workable.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a note that full instructions and fields require detail_profile=full with a reason, which reinforces the schema's existing documentation on the reason parameter. It does not add substantive new meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'one Lever profile form template', which distinguishes it from list_form_templates. It is concise and unambiguous about the tool's scope.
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 implies when to use this tool (for retrieving a single template) and provides a hint about using detail_profile=full for full details, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no reference to list_form_templates for listing multiple templates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resource-action combinations, but the sheer count (108) and the presence of closely related tools like list_opportunity_feedback / get_opportunity_feedback may cause occasional agent confusion.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, add_*, remove_*). Minor exceptions like apply_to_posting still fit the overall structure.
With 108 tools, the surface is excessively large for most agent workflows. Many tools could be merged or removed without losing essential functionality, leading to decision overload.
The tool set covers the full Lever API surface comprehensively, including opportunities, postings, requisitions, users, webhooks, templates, files, and compliance data, leaving no obvious gaps.