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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals important behavioral details: default output omits the download URL, and full metadata requires setting detail_profile=full along with a reason. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand side effects and prerequisites.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, and the parameter behavior is summarized efficiently.

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 is a simple metadata getter, and the description covers its key behavior with no output schema present. It doesn't enumerate what 'metadata' includes, but for this simplicity, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the interplay between detail_profile and reason, and the consequence of the 'operational' vs 'full' setting on the output (download URL omitted by default). This supplements the schema's static descriptions.

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 function: 'Retrieve file metadata for one Lever opportunity file.' The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'file metadata' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like download_opportunity_file (content vs metadata) and list_opportunity_files (one vs list).

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 on how to use the tool, noting that the default output omits the download URL and that full metadata requires detail_profile=full. It implies the tool is for metadata retrieval, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like download_opportunity_file, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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