hibob_search_position_openings

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond them: pagination through has_more/next_cursor, the exact JSON return envelope, the instruction to call again with next_cursor, and a concrete rate limit of 100 requests/minute. Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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 well-structured with purpose, args, returns, example, and rate limit. It is front-loaded and readable, though the Args section largely duplicates the input schema and could have been trimmed. The example and pagination details justify the overall length.

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 paginated search tool, the description covers the full call lifecycle: required fields, optional filters, pagination loop, return envelope, rate limit, and a concrete usage example. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so no critical information is missing 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description mostly restates parameter meanings but adds a worked filter example showing exactly how to encode field_id, operator, and values. It also clarifies the status domain (vacant, starting, filled, departing), which helps agents build correct filters without opening the schema.

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 opens with 'Search position openings' and immediately defines them as 'the vacancies attached to positions,' which clearly identifies the resource and separates the tool from position-level searches. It also explains that openings carry the recruitment view, making the tool's domain concrete.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant: it exposes recruitment status, expected start date, and whether a seat is vacant/starting/filled/departing. It also includes a natural-language example ('Which openings are still vacant?') with the matching filter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling search tools.

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