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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful content about returned pipeline data, includingstage, source, and culture fit, but does not mention pagination, sorting, freshness, or response format.

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?

It is a compact single sentence with no filler, and the two modes are front-loaded. The semicolon construction and the phrase 'Open vacancies' are slightly awkward, but the definition remains efficient.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both modes and gives some information about returned fields. It still leaves gaps around output structure, pagination, and whether all vacancies or only open vacancies are returned when vacancy_id is omitted.

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?

With only one optional integer parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that vacancy_id narrows results to candidates for that vacancy. However, it does not explicitly state that the parameter is optional or clarify what vacancy IDs are valid.

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 states the resource clearly: open vacancies with candidates by stage, and when vacancy_id is supplied, candidates for that vacancy with stage, source, and culture fit. It is specific enough to distinguish it from generic people search, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 explains the two parameter modes but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as find_people or pending. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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