Get vacancy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what payload is returned (description always, stages/candidate count optionally), but says nothing about auth needs or failure behavior for an unknown vacancy_id.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the core payload ('full details of one vacancy') before the optional expansions. No filler, though it could be slightly more precise about the include parameter.

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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return shape and the optional expansions. The main gap is that half the include enum values (location, department) are not surfaced anywhere.

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 50%: vacancy_id has an example description while the include enum items are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by naming 'stages' and 'candidate count' as optional inclusions, but omits the 'location' and 'department' include values entirely.

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+resource ('Full details of one vacancy') and clarifies scope as a single record, which implicitly separates it from list_vacancies. It does not name the sibling alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter (fetch details for one vacancy by id) and by the sibling list_vacancies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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