suggest_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates the main trait: the operation is non-destructive read/autocomplete and returns either compact id–name listings or raw JSON based on the 'raw' flag. It doesn't disclose rate limits, auth token requirements, or default response behavior, but for a simple autocomplete tool the core behavior is sufficiently clear.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a precise sibling disambiguation. No wasted words; every part 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 autocomplete tool with two well-documented parameters and no nested objects/output schema, the description plus schema is largely complete. The main missing piece is response shape (the compact listing format isn't detailed), but since no output schema exists, the description should have revealed a bit more about what the compact output looks like. Still, it's adequate 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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions 'free-form job titles / positions' and the raw flag in the schema already says 'Return the full raw hh.ru JSON instead of the compact id—name listing.' The description adds no new parameter semantics, so 3 is correct.

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 ('Autocomplete free-form job titles / positions via /suggests/positions') and explicitly differentiates from sibling suggest_professional_roles by saying this is not for role IDs. An agent can distinguish it from the many sibling suggest_* tools and other listing tools.

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 names the sibling tool for the alternative case ('use suggest_professional_roles for those'), which gives a clear when-not-to-use signal. It doesn't elaborate on other contexts (e.g., when to choose it over other autocomplete tools), but the schema and sibling names provide enough context.

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