Topvacaturebank

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a profile lookup, and 'public profile' usefully signals that no auth or private data is involved. Beyond that the description adds little: it does not say what happens when the slug is unknown (error vs empty) or whether vacancy counts are live or cached. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 verb and resource, followed by the concrete payload. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to find the point.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields covers most of what an agent needs, and annotations handle the safety story. The remaining gap is failure behaviour for an invalid or unknown slug, which the definition never addresses.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that slug is the employer_slug from search-vacancies. The description adds no format, casing, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('public profile of an employer in the Netherlands'), then enumerates the fields returned (name, place, description, website, open vacancy count, profile URL). This clearly separates it from the vacancy-oriented siblings such as get-vacancy and search-vacancies.

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 itself gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. The only routing signal is in the schema ('as returned by search-vacancies'), which implies a search-then-fetch workflow, but that is implied rather than stated in the definition.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description goes beyond it by naming the payload contents (intro, tasks, requirements, page URL) and the regional scope of the data. It does not say what happens when the job is unknown or ambiguous, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 front-loaded sentence carries purpose, content list, locale, and scope with no filler. The comma-separated content list is slightly dense but every clause adds information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does so by naming the fields and the page URL. For a single-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation, that is nearly complete; only the not-found/ambiguity behavior is unstated.

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 already gives an example value, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by stating that job titles are Dutch, which tells the agent the expected language of the slug/name and is not in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the job description of a job) and enumerates the returned content: intro, what the job involves, tasks, requirements, plus the page URL. It adds a geographic scope (Netherlands) and a locale constraint (Dutch job titles). It does not explicitly contrast with get-vacancy, though the resource itself is clearly distinct.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs the descriptive content of a job rather than a posting. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling such as get-vacancy for actual openings, so the agent must reason about the boundary itself.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: it discloses the return payload (salary range, monthly trend over the past year, and a salary page URL). It does not say what happens for an unknown job or slug, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second carries the critical input constraint. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the currency, period, and locale are all specified. The only omission is error/empty-result behavior for an unrecognized job, which is minor for a simple one-parameter read.

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%, so the single parameter is already documented as a name or slug with an example. The description adds genuinely new meaning beyond the schema — that titles must be Dutch — which is a semantic constraint an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource — average monthly salary range in euros for a job in the Netherlands — with units, currency, and geography all stated. It is unmistakable against siblings like get-vacancy or get-employer, but it never explicitly routes the agent away from them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get-job-description. Usage is only implied by the resource itself, though the closing note that job titles are Dutch is a useful input constraint that prevents a common misuse.

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

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses the Markdown format, current-vacancy scope, and specific content and links included in the result. It does not address freshness, missing fields, or invalid or stale keys, but those are secondary gaps for this simple read operation.

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 front-loaded sentence states the operation, scope, output format, and returned fields without filler. The field list is purposeful and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description and schema provide enough information to obtain a key and anticipate the result despite the absence of an output schema. Explicit sibling routing and behavior for unknown or no-longer-current keys would make the definition more complete.

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?

The sole parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance from search-vacancies, so the 100% schema-coverage baseline applies. The description adds no further key syntax, validation, or lifecycle semantics.

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 pairs a clear verb and resource with a precise result scope: the full text of a current vacancy, plus salary, employer, place, URL, and apply URL. It does not explicitly distinguish this broad retrieval from siblings such as get-job-description or get-salary-info.

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 full-text wording and the schema's statement that the key comes from search-vacancies establish a clear workflow: search first, then retrieve a specific vacancy's complete details. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for narrower information needs.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description must carry the rest, and it does disclose the return shape (total found plus a list) and the identity fields needed for follow-up calls. It does not discuss result ordering, relevance behavior, or whether an empty total means no matches versus a failed query, but for a read-only search that is a modest gap rather than a serious one.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the search scope, the second states the return payload and the follow-up keys. Nothing is redundant and the scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, return-value explanation falls to the description, and it covers total count, list contents, and the key/employer slug/URL per item. For a five-parameter, all-optional read-only search this is close to complete; ordering and pagination semantics beyond limit are the only noticeable omissions.

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%, so all five parameters (what, where, limit, employment_type, posted_within_days) are already documented with examples and ranges in the schema. The description adds only the high-level framing that filtering is by job and place, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search current vacancies") plus a geographic scope ("in the Netherlands") and the filter axes (job, place). The closing clause links results to the get-vacancy and get-employer siblings, which implicitly separates this lookup/listing tool from the detail-fetch tools without naming a competing search 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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "Search current vacancies ... by job and place"; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement of prerequisites such as authentication or regional availability. The one genuinely useful routing hint is that each result's key and employer slug feed get-vacancy and get-employer, which establishes the search-then-fetch workflow.

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