suggest_vacancy_search_keyword

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 does not state safety, idempotency, rate limits, or output behavior beyond the endpoint path. The raw parameter hints at output formats, but the description itself adds no safety or side-effect context.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose immediately. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used an additional sentence to cover usage context without becoming bloated.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, the absence of usage guidance, output format description, and behavioral notes leaves notable gaps. An Agent could call the tool correctly from the schema, but it would lack confidence about when to invoke it over siblings.

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 no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the relationship between 'text' and 'raw' or elaborate on expected input format. The schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 vacancy-search keywords' via an endpoint. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like suggest_resume_search_keyword, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from suggest_positions or other suggest tools, leaving some ambiguity about when it should be chosen.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for partial keyword input in vacancy search, nor does it contrast with suggest_positions, suggest_resume_search_keyword, or search_vacancies. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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