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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the candidate receives a notification and can respond, and clarifies the fallback behavior for recruiterContact. It does not discuss reversibility or required permissions, but the core side effect of sending a vacancy is clear.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then gives concise optionality guidance. The bilingual closing sentence is slightly redundant with the Russian details, but the overall length is appropriate and every part contributes useful 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough invocation context: purpose, condition for use, and key fallback behavior. It appropriately relies on the 100%-covered schema for parameter details, though it does not describe the response format.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that candidate can be omitted in personal mode and that recruiterContact will fall back to the user's email, which is more meaningful than the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: send a vacancy to a candidate, and frames it as the first step when the candidate is suitable. This distinguishes it from generic messaging tools like message_candidate by naming the specific resource being sent.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'first step if the candidate fits.' It also explains mode-specific behavior, noting that candidate is unnecessary in personal mode and recruiterContact defaults to the authenticated email. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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