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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies read-only, and the deprecation note is useful, but it does not mention return format, pagination, error behavior, or authentication needs. Basic transparency is present but not enriched.

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 action, followed by the deprecation note. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 a 4-parameter tool with clear schema descriptions, the description provides the essential purpose and the crucial deprecation alternative. It lacks a note on detail_profile return differences, but the schema covers param meaning. Sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval 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 parameter descriptions already explain each field. The tool description adds no parameter-specific context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve one application attached to a Lever opportunity.' It also explicitly names the preferred alternative (get_opportunity with expand=applications), clearly distinguishing this tool from get_opportunity and list_opportunity_applications.

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 states 'Deprecated by Lever in favor of get_opportunity with expand=applications, but maintained for backwards compatibility,' providing explicit when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance. This directly tells the agent to prefer the alternative while acknowledging backwards compatibility.

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