list_active_vacancies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It meaningfully discloses that the tool requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN, targets only published/active vacancies, and is scoped to the authenticated employer account. It does not disclose the response shape or possible errors, but the auth requirement and scoping are significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, includes the endpoint, states the auth requirement, and names the alternative – every sentence 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is listed, for whom, auth needs, and the endpoint. It does not describe the response structure, but the schema's raw and pagination parameters already hint at output behavior, so the definition is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters (raw, page, per_page, employer_id). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing the endpoint path; it does not explain the raw/compact distinction or pagination defaults beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List published (active) vacancies for the authenticated employer account' and points to the exact endpoint. It further differentiates itself from the sibling get_employer_vacancies by scope, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (active vacancies for the authenticated employer account) and directs the agent to an alternative: 'For any employer's public vacancies use get_employer_vacancies.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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