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.