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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. The deprecation notice is a useful behavioral disclosure, but it omits other aspects like pagination behavior, auth requirements, or response structure. Adds some value but not comprehensive.

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: purpose in the first, deprecation/alternative in the second. No wasted words, front-loaded and highly scannable.

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?

For a deprecated list tool, the description covers purpose, deprecation, and alternative, and the schema handles parameter details. It doesn't explain return shape, but this is acceptable given its simplicity and schema richness.

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 parameters are fully described. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 it lists applications for one Lever opportunity, distinguishing it from list_opportunities and get_opportunity_application. The verb 'List' plus the resource and scope make it 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?

Explicitly says the tool is deprecated in favor of get_opportunity with expand=applications, giving the agent a direct alternative and clear guidance to prefer the modern approach. This is precise when-not guidance.

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