get_recruiting_vacancy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool accepts multiple identifier formats and returns specific fields, which is useful but does not reveal significant behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The key action and supported identifiers are front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, identifier flexibility, and returned fields. Annotations handle safety. No gaps are evident.

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?

The single parameter 'vacancy' has no schema enum or description. The tool definition compensates by listing acceptable formats: raw _id, VCN-<number>, bare number, or exact name, adding essential meaning beyond the schema type 'string'.

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 explicitly states 'Get one Recruiting vacancy' and enumerates multiple identifier formats and the fields returned. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_recruiting_vacancies' and 'archive_recruiting_vacancy'.

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 implies usage for retrieving a specific vacancy but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as 'get_recruiting_applicant' or 'search' tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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