list_archived_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 usefully discloses the auth requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, pagination semantics, or what 'archived' vs deleted means.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the auth precondition follows. Nothing repeats structured data unnecessarily.

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?

With no output schema, the description needn't explain return values, and all params are covered by the schema. For a simple read-only list tool, the only minor gap is the absence of guidance on the archived-state meaning and relationship to sibling list tools.

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 all four parameters (employer_id, page, per_page, raw) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (archived vacancies) scoped to an employer. The 'archived' qualifier cleanly distinguishes it from siblings list_active_vacancies and list_hidden_vacancies without needing to open 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?

Usage is only implied by the name and scope ('archived vacancies for an employer'). It never names the alternative sibling tools nor states when-not to use this, so an agent must infer the selection condition from the name alone.

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