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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool is an evaluative call and lists the structure of the returned assessment. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or limitations beyond the schema, leaving some ambiguity around how candidate context is resolved.

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 compact bilingual sentence with the action and key output components front-loaded. It could split the two languages for clarity, but there is no dead weight.

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 names the main output fields, which helps. However, it does not clarify whether a candidate must be selected in context or passed via candidate, and 'условия выхода' is ambiguous. The schema compensates for parameter details, but not for candidate-resolution behavior.

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 schema already documents lang, candidate, and vacancyText. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond pointing at the vacancy text; 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 names a concrete action (paste a job description) and a concrete outcome (structured candidate-fit assessment with matched skills, seniority, exit conditions). This is enough to distinguish match_vacancy from siblings like get_resume or send_vacancy.

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 use case is implied by 'evaluate candidate fit', but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as assessment or ask_about_experience, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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