suggest_skill_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Autocomplete skills via /suggests/skill_set' and does not describe what the response looks like, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or edge cases. For a suggestion tool, the lack of output format details is a significant gap.

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 a single, short sentence that directly states the action and endpoint. It is efficient and front-loaded, but it is also under-specified, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It earns its place but could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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 and no annotations, the description should provide context about the tool's return behavior, any limitations, and how to use it effectively. It does none of this. The description is minimal and leaves the agent without crucial information about what the tool actually returns, making it incomplete for a tool with these characteristics.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (text and raw) are already documented in the schema, including the meaning of raw ('Return the full raw hh.ru JSON instead of the compact id — name listing'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description clearly states that the tool autocompletes skills, which is a specific resource. It is distinguishable from sibling suggest tools (positions, companies, areas, etc.) based on the skill domain, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself. The verb 'autocomplete' and resource 'skills' are clear, but the description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative suggest tools like suggest_positions, suggest_companies, or suggest_professional_roles. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or when not to use it. It simply states the function without providing context for selection.

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