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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a generic 'list' statement by explaining the default output behavior (keeps scores, timestamps, users, and field presence without returning field values). However, it omits other behavioral facets like pagination or the effect of the 'reason' parameter, leaving some gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then adds a concise, valuable behavioral detail about the default output. No redundant or filler content.

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 the 100% schema coverage and lack of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the default output and the tool's purpose. However, it does not elaborate on the 'full' detail_profile or when to provide 'reason', though those are explained in the schema. This is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, with all five parameters adequately described (limit, cursor, reason, detail_profile, opportunity_id). The description itself does not add parameter-level semantics beyond implying the default detail_profile behavior. Since the schema already carries the load, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and the resource ('feedback forms for a Lever opportunity'), making it specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_opportunity_feedback' (singular fetch) and 'list_feedback_templates' (different resource). It also adds a behavioral note about default output, further clarifying scope.

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: this tool lists feedback forms for a specific opportunity. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately. A note distinguishing it from 'get_opportunity_feedback' would push it to 5.

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