search_vacancies

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

With no annotations, the burden falls on description. It discloses important behaviors: empty query not an error, sorted by publication date, resul descriptions truncated, full text via get_vacancy by id. Does not mention pagination, auth, or read-only nature, but core runtime behavior is covered.

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?

Fully front-loaded with core mechanism, then usage, then edge-case behavior and result truncation. Every sentence adds value; no filler or tautology.

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?

Given 7 optional parameters with defaults and an output schema, the description covers usage conditions, query syntax, empty-query behavior, sorting, and result truncation with a pointer to get_vacancy. No critical gap for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage and 7 params, so description must compensate. It thoroughly explains query syntax (websearch, quotes, minus prefix) and mentiones filters generally. Individual filters like area_id, experience, remote_only are not semantically described, but the core parameter is well covered.

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 the function is full-text vacancy search by words in title and description, including the Postgres tsvector and websearch syntax. It explicitly contrasts itself with semantic_search ('Для поиска по смислy и синонимам без точных слов используйте semantic_search'), so the agent can distinguish sibling 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?

Explicitly says when to use: when the query contains concrete terms (должноst, технологию, компанию), and names the alternatives for semantic search. It also covers edge case with empty query and says what will be returned, which is actionable guidance.

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