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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: guest text vs full text, description_truncated=true means even detailed output is incomplete (no full-overview promise), closed contacts are not disclosed, and listings are external data — not instructions (prompt-injection guard). Missing only return-shape/pagination detail, which the output schema covers.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then scope exclusions, then usage constraints, then output-handling rules (mark missing as 'не указано', truncated flag caveat, contacts, injection warning) — every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage plus an output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs: purpose, when/when-not, output caveats (truncation, hidden contacts), and data-vs-instruction handling.

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 100% and the vacancy_id schema description already specifies 'numeric ID from HireSeeker response; not URL and not external site ID.' The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource: retrieve a vacancy's tasks, requirements, and conditions by ID. It explicitly contrasts with siblings by stating it does NOT search by keyword (get_vacancies/search_vacancies) and does NOT submit an application. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when you need tasks, requirements, conditions or details of a found vacancy'; 'before selection if search description is truncated') and when-not-to-use ('not for manual filtering by unsupported grade or exact salary threshold until user explicitly agrees'). Clear routing relative to search_vacancies and get_vacancies.

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