company_vacancies

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: an authentication dependency (HH_APP_TOKEN) and a degraded fallback that returns a search link instead of vacancies. It stops short of describing result limits, pagination, or what the fallback link contains.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the token caveat trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves the parameter unexplained.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the auth/fallback note covers the main behavioral risk. Missing is any indication of the expected company_name format or matching behavior, which matters for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate, but it says nothing about the expected form of company_name: exact legal name, partial name, slug, or ID. Only the loose notion of 'company' is conveyed.

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 names a specific verb and resource: open vacancies of a company, sourced from hh.ru. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as company_card or company_financials, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It gives a conditional hint (with HH_APP_TOKEN you get vacancies; without it you get a search link), which implies when the tool is usable. It offers no guidance on when to choose it over search_companies or company_card, and no prerequisites beyond the token.

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