get_vacancy_conditions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful context by stating the token requirement and current-employer scoping, but it does not disclose read-only semantics, the shape of the compact summary, or potential error/limitation behavior.

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 one functional sentence followed by an essential auth note. It front-loads the verb and resource and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one optional parameter and no required inputs, but with no output schema the agent must guess what the compact summary or raw response contains. A brief note on typical return content would round it out.

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?

The only parameter, 'raw', is fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat it. It adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly identifies the operation ('Get') and the resource ('vacancy publication conditions / constraints') scoped to the current employer. This is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like get_vacancy or get_employer_vacancies, though 'conditions / constraints' remains somewhat open-ended.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of related sibling tools, and no exclusions. The HH_ACCESS_TOKEN note is a prerequisite, not a use-case selector.

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