get_related_vacancies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add useful context by stating that the endpoint is public and requires no token. However, it does not disclose behavior like pagination defaults, the compact-summary vs raw response distinction, or what output shape to expect.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds a relevant endpoint and authentication detail. There is no redundancy or filler.

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-like tool this is mostly adequate, especially with full schema coverage and the public/no-token detail. But because there is no output schema and no annotation, the description omits return-format expectations and fails to disambiguate from get_similar_vacancies, leaving some context incomplete.

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 every parameter is already documented structurally (vacancy_id, page, per_page, raw). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Find vacancies related to a given one' and identifies the exact hh.ru endpoint. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding sibling get_similar_vacancies.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of get_similar_vacancies and search_vacancies, an agent receives no help choosing among them; the only usage hint is 'Public, no token,' which addresses authentication context rather than selection criteria.

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