list_active_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 disclose two useful traits: the underlying endpoint path and the HH_ACCESS_TOKEN auth requirement. It says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or that the operation is a safe read, so the disclosure is partial rather than rich.

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 no filler: the purpose and endpoint come first, followed by the auth requirement and the disambiguating alternative. Every clause earns its place.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus a fully documented schema is nearly sufficient. It could have noted the compact-summary-vs-raw return behavior and pagination envelope, but the essential calling information is present.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that employer_id refers to the authenticated account, but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already documents for raw, page, and per_page.

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 published (active) vacancies'), names the exact endpoint, and scopes it to the authenticated employer account. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling get_employer_vacancies without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for the authenticated account's own active vacancies, and get_employer_vacancies for any employer's public vacancies. It does not, however, clarify how it relates to the nearby siblings list_archived_vacancies and list_hidden_vacancies, leaving that scoping to inference.

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