get_employer_manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose the auth requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, adding some behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe response behavior, error behavior, or whether the manager must belong to the employer — though for a simple fetch, the disclosed context is minimally adequate.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the purpose is front-loaded and the auth requirement is a single necessary addendum. Every word earns its place for a simple single-resource lookup tool.

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 simple fetch tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core need: what the tool retrieves, by what identifiers, and what auth is required. The main gaps are the missing contrast with list_employer_managers and any note about the compact-vs-raw return behavior (though the schema covers the raw flag). It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: raw, manager_id, and employer_id all have descriptions in the schema, including the raw param's behavioral note about returning full hh.ru JSON. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single employer manager by id'), which is clear and unambiguous. The qualifier 'single ... by id' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_employer_managers, though it doesn't name it explicitly, so the differentiation is functional rather than stated.

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 mentions a precondition (Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Given the sibling list_employer_managers exists, an explicit note like 'use this for one manager; use list_employer_managers to enumerate' would be needed. No such routing or exclusion guidance is present.

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