hcm_search_positions

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Search' wording is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation: it does not explain pagination behavior, how limit/offset interact, whether finder refers to a named LOV finder, or what kind of result set is returned. It therefore adds no meaningful 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 only three words and contains no fluff, so it is superficially concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and multiple closely related siblings. The brevity is closer to under-specification than to appropriately sized, high-value 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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and an ambiguous acronym, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool effectively. It conveys the basic domain and read-only intent, but the agent cannot determine what to put in 'q' or 'finder', what the response shape is, or how this differs from hcm_lov_find and hcm_get_position. Major operational details are absent.

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%, so the description has the full burden of explaining q, limit, finder, and offset. It does not mention any of these parameters or add any meaning beyond their names. 'Search positions LOV' gives no hint about the expected query format, finder semantics, or pagination semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 identifies the operation ('Search') and the target resource ('positions'), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from related tools such as hcm_get_position, hcm_lov_find, or hcm_search_jobs, and the acronym 'LOV' is left unexplained, leaving some ambiguity about exactly what 'positions LOV' means.

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 provides no guidance on when to use hcm_search_positions versus alternatives. It does not mention hcm_get_position for retrieving a specific position, hcm_lov_find for general LOV lookup, or hcm_describe_finder for understanding finder parameters. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and parameter names.

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