list_vacancies

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination but lacks details on sorting, rate limits, or what constitutes 'open' vs 'all'. The behavior of pagination (e.g., default page size, maximum) is partially covered in the schema, but the description adds minimal transparency.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. While it could be more structured (e.g., separate sentences for different aspects), it avoids verbosity and 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers basic purpose and pagination, but misses important context like the required account_id parameter, what constitutes 'open' vs 'all', and any side effects or limitations.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'open/all' which maps to the 'opened' parameter, but provides no additional meaning beyond the schema. No new context for other parameters.

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 action (list) and resource (vacancies), and mentions filtering by open/all and pagination. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vacancy' or 'list_accounts'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vacancy' for a single vacancy or 'search_applicants' for filtering. It does not specify context or prerequisites (e.g., that account_id is required).

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