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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by listing the returned fields (description, location, department, hiring stages, salary indication, candidate count, URLs), the HTTP endpoint, and the required scope, though it does not mention error behavior or pagination (not relevant for a single fetch).

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 a single tight sentence followed by the endpoint and scope, with no filler. Every phrase earns its place by clarifying either the returned data or the invocation context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does so by enumerating the key fields. Combined with annotations that already cover the safety profile and the scope note, an agent has everything needed to call this read-only endpoint correctly.

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%, and the single vacancy_id parameter is fully documented with a pattern and example in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (vacancy), scoped to a single record by id, which naturally distinguishes it from the sibling list_vacancies. It also enumerates key return fields, giving an agent a precise sense of what will be returned.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving one vacancy when its id is known, and it names the required scope (vacancies:read) as a practical prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_vacancies or get_application, leaving usage inference to the agent.

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