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 states 'List,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the tool's name.

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 14 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning every word's place.

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?

Despite having 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain pagination, grouping behavior, detail_profile options, or what the response contains. For a tool of this complexity, the description is inadequate.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description mentions analysis dimensions (job, team, department, location, requisition, distribution-channel) which loosely map to some parameters, but it does not add concrete syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Lever postings,' with a scope of analysis dimensions. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_deleted_postings or list_posting_users by focusing on postings, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'for ... analysis' implies a use case for analyzing postings across various dimensions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_posting or list_deleted_postings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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