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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that default output omits contact PII and that contact details require a reason, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the raw schema. However, it does not mention authentication, error cases, or any side effects (though a read tool likely has none).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds a specific behavioral note without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 rich schema with full parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral nuance (PII handling) and the tool's core action. It does not elaborate on expand/include, but the schema covers those, so the description is adequate for a get tool.

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 schema already explains all 5 parameters. The description restates the detail_profile=contact behavior but adds no new semantic meaning for expand, include, or reason beyond what the schema provides. 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 starts with 'Retrieve one Lever opportunity,' which clearly states a specific verb and resource with explicit singular scope. This distinguishes it from list_opportunities (plural), get_opportunity_application, and other subresource getters.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_opportunities or get_opportunity_application. It does provide clear parameter-level guidance about using detail_profile=contact with a reason for PII access, but tool selection is only implied by the name and description.

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