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 only says 'List file-related activity' and 'without downloading files,' which is minimal. It does not explain what 'activity' entails (e.g., file uploads, deletions), return format, pagination behavior, or any access requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 of 17 words, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List file-related activity for a Lever opportunity') and followed by a concise use-case clarifier. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the tool returns. It vaguely says 'file-related activity' but does not describe the response structure, what actions are included, or pagination. The use-case note is helpful but insufficient for a tool that lists activity, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret results 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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning; it omits any reference to the filter parameters or cursor pagination. It adds no value beyond the schema, so the baseline score stands.

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 file-related activity for a Lever opportunity, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('file-related activity'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_opportunity_files (files themselves) and download_opportunity_file (downloading), and the phrase 'without downloading files' reinforces the specific 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 explains the tool is useful for 'resume/import/change hygiene without downloading files,' providing a clear use case and implying it's an alternative to downloading. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it's slightly below the top score.

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