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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool reads a local file path from the MCP host, a useful detail, but omits other important aspects such as whether permissions are required, what side effects occur (a file object created in Lever), or how the file is processed (size limits, binary handling). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap, so a low score is warranted.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and then gives a key implementation detail. Every word earns its 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain return values, the purpose of the control-plane parameters (confirm, dry_run, reason), or the distinction from upload_opportunity_file. This leaves an agent under-informed about when this upload endpoint should be used and what to expect.

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 provides descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor extra meaning for file_path by clarifying it is a local path on the MCP host, but it doesn't enhance the other parameters. This is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool's function: uploading a file via Lever's generic POST /uploads endpoint. The word 'generic' distinguishes it from the sibling upload_opportunity_file, which presumably uploads files tied to a specific opportunity. This is a specific verb+resource that goes beyond a tautology.

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 context that the tool reads a file from the MCP host, but does not explain when to use this generic uploader versus upload_opportunity_file or other upload-related tools. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, making the usage guidance implicit. The 'generic' phrase offers a hint but not enough for clear selection.

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