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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates 'List' and gives a use case; it does not mention read-only nature, pagination behavior, default filters (e.g., active users only), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an unannotated 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. However, it is under-specified, so brevity comes at the cost of informativeness.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain pagination, response structure, or the undocumented parameters. For a list tool in a large sibling group, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 67%, leaving includeDeactivated and external_directory_id undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not map the listed roles to the accessRole parameter or add any meaning beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Lever users') and adds the intended purpose of selecting users for roles like owners, hiring managers, etc. It helps distinguish from generic list tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_posting_users.

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 joining owners, hiring managers...' implies the tool is used when assigning users to these roles, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance compared to alternatives. Usage is implied, not stated.

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