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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: default output summarizes fields without values, and full field values require a reason. This goes beyond a simple retrieval statement and informs the agent about potential authorization/input requirements.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word adds value without unnecessary detail.

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, so the description must convey some return behavior. It explains the two output modes (summary vs full) and the reason requirement, which covers the main nuances. However, it lacks specifics about the response structure or what the summary includes, leaving a small gap.

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 each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the 'reason' parameter's role in enabling full values, which is already documented.

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 action 'Retrieve' and the specific resource 'one Lever profile form attached to an opportunity'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_opportunity_forms or get_opportunity, making its 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 implies usage when a specific form's details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_opportunity_forms. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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