collect_vacancy_resumes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses filesystem side effects (writes raw JSON + manifest/csv under out_dir), authentication needs (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN), rate-limit/budget behavior (gated budget, max_wait_ms), pagination (cursor/remaining when truncated), and batching constraints (max). This is substantial behavioral context.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core workflow and outputs, the second adds constraints and return behavior, and the third gives usage preference and auth requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, outputs, constraints, pagination, and auth. It leaves some details vague, such as what 'gated budget' means precisely, how stop_on_captcha behaves, and the full return shape beyond cursor/remaining, but it is still sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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 high (89%), so the baseline is already 3. The tool description mentions max, max_wait_ms, and out_dir by name but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. It introduces topic_id contextually, but that is not a schema parameter, so it does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 action and resource: walking a vacancy funnel and fetching each resume, then writing outputs. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by describing a batch collection/export workflow rather than a simple get or search, and even notes it should be preferred over subagent spawning.

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 provides explicit guidance by saying 'Prefer this over spawning subagents,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It does not enumerate alternative sibling tools or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for a batch resume collection task.

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