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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or result structure. The brevity leaves the agent to infer behavior from the schema and tool name, which is insufficient.

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 with a clear verb and object, no redundancy with the tool name or schema, and no filler. It is efficient 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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain pagination behavior, return format, or the intended use of include vs detail_profile. The use-case sentence helps but does not compensate for the missing operational completeness needed for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and the 'reason' parameter description in the schema appears inconsistent with the detail_profile enum, but that is a schema issue, not a description issue.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Lever profile form templates'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_feedback_templates and get_form_template. The use-case phrase adds practical context and makes the tool's scope explicit.

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?

It provides clear context with 'useful for profile-form hygiene and structured-data coverage audits', but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_form_template for a single template or list_feedback_templates. This is clear context without exclusions, warranting a 4.

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