get_employer_vacancy_areas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the HH_ACCESS_TOKEN auth requirement plus the 'active' filter, which the schema does not. However it says nothing about pagination, result volume, or whether the token must own the employer, leaving meaningful gaps for a token-gated list tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the prerequisite trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and auth but omits what an 'area' is and what the response contains. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would have to discover at call time.

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% for both parameters (employer_id pattern and raw flag are documented in-schema). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond implying employer scoping, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List active vacancy areas') scoped to an employer, which separates it from global area lookups like get_areas/get_areas_subtree and from get_employer_vacancies. The domain term 'vacancy areas' is not defined, so an agent gets the shape but not the exact semantics.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative (e.g. get_areas for global dictionaries). The only routing signal is the implicit employer scoping and the token prerequisite.

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