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

Although annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral context: request-order, dedup, unavailable_ids, failure semantics (service error = batch not done; don't retry singly), the description_truncated flag, closed-contact policy, and a prompt-injection warning about treating vacancy text as data.

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 purpose and the batched-vs-single choice are front-loaded, and every sentence carries operational value (return order, error handling, truncation, exclusions). It is dense and long, but not padded or repetitive.

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?

Despite having an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description still clarifies return structure and edge cases. It covers error handling, partial availability, truncation, and usage limits, leaving no obvious gap for an agent calling a single-parameter batch tool.

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%, so the array constraints (1-5, dedup, not URL/external ID) are already documented. The description reinforces these and adds the operational detail of splitting larger ID sets into groups of up to five, which goes slightly beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (retrieving details of several vacancies in one batch) and its scope (for a collection or comparison). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_vacancy by positioning itself as the batched alternative for multiple cards.

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 gives explicit when-to-use ('when you need details of several found vacancies'), the alternative it replaces (separate get_vacancy calls), the batching rule (up to five IDs, split larger pages into groups), and exclusions (no keyword search, no applications, no filtering by unsupported grade/salary without consent).

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