List vacancies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that list results can be enriched with pipeline data, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or result scoping beyond what the schema shows.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the enrichment hint follows. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

Adequate for a read-only list tool with no output schema: the schema covers pagination defaults and limits. However, it never mentions the status filter's role (public/private/draft/closed) or that results are paged, leaving part of the tool's behavior to inference.

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%: page and perPage carry descriptions, while status and include are bare enums. The description partially compensates by explaining the purpose of two include values ('stages','total_candidate_count' → hiring pipeline), but status filtering and the 'location'/'department' include values remain uninterpreted.

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 ('List job openings (vacancies)'), immediately clear to an agent. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the singular sibling get_vacancy or with pipeline_summary, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives one concrete usage cue: pass include=['stages','total_candidate_count'] to see each job's hiring pipeline. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_vacancy, list_job_applications, or pipeline_summary, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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