get_vacancy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the source (hh.ru), the fact that the description is not truncated, and the returned contents. It does not mention potential latency, error conditions, access constraints, or that this is a live fetch, so the behavioral picture is only partially complete.

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 sentences, no redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and clear siblings, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is returned and when to invoke it. Minor gaps around failure modes and availability are acceptable because the tool is simple and the output schema already defines the return shape.

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 0%, but the description compensates by specifying 'by its id' and linking the id to the output of search_vacancies/semantic_search. For a single integer parameter, this adds enough semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'Vacancy Id' title.

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 and resource: retrieving the full card of one vacancy by id from hh.ru. It also enumerates the card contents (description, employer, skills, link) and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as the detailed follow-up to search_vacancies/semantic_search.

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?

Gives explicit context: use after search_vacancies or semantic_search to study a concrete vacancy, or before compare_to_profile. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name exclusions, but the intended workflow is clear.

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