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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that the tool returns 'Lever's referral form payload' and implies read-only by 'List'. But it does not mention auth, pagination response details, or potential side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant wording. Every phrase adds value.

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, so the description's note about returning the referral form payload partially addresses return semantics. Combined with a fully described parameter list and explicit use cases, the tool is reasonably complete for a list operation, though the exact return structure remains vague.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline 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 referrals') and the resource ('a Lever opportunity'), and adds specific investigative use cases ('referral-source and referral-SLA investigations'). It is distinct from the sibling get_opportunity_referral by indicating a list operation and payload type.

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 explicitly says to use it for referral-source and referral-SLA investigations, giving clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as distinguishing from get_opportunity_referral.

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