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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that the tool lists users and roles with access. It does not disclose potential behaviors such as permission requirements, pagination, or whether only active users are included. As a read-only list operation, the lack of destructive intent is implied, but more explicit detail would improve transparency.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes a purpose. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or clutter.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns (users and roles). It does not provide output format details, but for a straightforward list operation with a clear semantic, this is largely sufficient. Slight room for improvement would be noting that it returns roles per user.

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 schema already covers the only parameter (posting_id) with a description ('Lever posting ID.'), so baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, that is acceptable.

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 tool lists users and roles with access to a specific Lever posting, distinguishing it from list_users (all users) and list_postings (postings). It also includes a specific use case (confidential-posting access audits), making the purpose 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?

The phrase 'useful for confidential-posting access audits' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid (e.g., list_users) or state when not to use it. The usage is implied rather than spelled out, but the intent is clear enough.

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