list_hidden_vacancies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the meaningful precondition that HH_ACCESS_TOKEN is required, which is useful beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose the response shape, pagination behavior, or what 'hidden' means in API terms.

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 short sentences with no redundant filler. The core action is front-loaded and the token requirement is stated efficiently.

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 list operation with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. Still, it lacks an output-format note, any guidance on when hidden vacancies are relevant, and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 input schema fully documents employer_id, raw, page, and per_page. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since the schema already covers this, the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List hidden vacancies for an employer.' This cleanly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_archived_vacancies or get_employer_vacancies, but 'hidden vacancies' is a distinct enough scope.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN,' which is an authentication prerequisite rather than guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling vacancy-listing tools are provided.

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