get_resumes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals rate limiting (sequential, ~1.5s spacing), timeout handling (max_wait_ms, DSH 120s), captcha behavior (stop_on_captcha), and authentication requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN). These are critical operational traits beyond what the schema exposes.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose ('Safely fetch up to 50 resumes sequentially'). Each sentence carries operational detail, though it could be slightly streamlined. It is not verbose, but packs many numbers and constraints that are useful.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: rate limiting, timeouts, captcha handling, scoped reads, and auth. It does not explicitly describe the default return format (though it implies a Russian summary via the raw parameter), nor error handling for partial failures, but overall it is quite complete for the complexity level.

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 coverage is 71% (5 of 7 parameters have descriptions), but the description adds valuable semantics: it explains the topics map and vacancy_id for scoped reads, and details max_wait_ms behavior with the spacing calculation. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 tool fetches up to 50 resumes sequentially, specifying the resource (resumes) and the action (fetch). It distinguishes from siblings like get_resume (single) and search_resumes (search) by emphasizing the batch, sequential nature and the resume-view budget.

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 specific parameter usage instructions (topics map, vacancy_id, stop_on_captcha, max_wait_ms) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It implies it is for fetching known resume IDs but lacks explicit exclusions or guidance on when to prefer search_resumes or collect_vacancy_resumes.

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