list_hidden_vacancies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the auth requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN), which is genuine context an agent needs before calling. It does not explain what 'hidden' means, what fields are returned, or any rate/permission constraints beyond the token.

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 the purpose first and the prerequisite second; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 paginated read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth adequately. The main gap is sibling disambiguation (active vs archived vs hidden), which the description leaves implicit.

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 documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (hidden vacancies) scoped to an employer, which is enough to distinguish it from the obvious siblings list_active_vacancies and list_archived_vacancies by the 'hidden' qualifier. However, it never names those siblings or explains what 'hidden' means, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no reference to the active/archived alternatives that clearly exist among the siblings. The agent must guess that this is the right tool for hidden postings versus list_active_vacancies.

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