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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add valuable context by revealing that the tool reads a local file path on the MCP host and targets the POST /opportunities/:opportunity/files endpoint. However, it omits side effects, overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, and error/response handling, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 terse, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action and endpoint, the second adds the crucial local-file constraint. Every word contributes valuable information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core action and a key constraint (local file path), but it is thin on post-upload behavior, error handling, and differentiation from the sibling upload_file tool. The complete parameter descriptions in the schema mitigate some gaps, but not all.

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 100%, with all seven parameters already documented in the input schema. The description only reinforces the file_path parameter as a local path and does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 opens with the specific verb+resource combination 'Upload a file to a Lever opportunity' and includes the exact API endpoint, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_file, download_opportunity_file, and delete_opportunity_file.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: uploading a file attachment to a specific opportunity, with the crucial note that the file path is read from the MCP host's local filesystem. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the specificity of the endpoint and resource makes the use case unambiguous.

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