Apply to Vacancy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the two-pass flow and that the first call returns a questions list. However, it omits behavioral traits like authorization requirements, potential side effects (e.g., irreversible submission), or error handling.

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 short, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses two concise paragraphs: one for the two-pass flow and one for parameter definitions, with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutating tool with a two-pass workflow, the description covers the main flow and parameter usage. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., must have a resume), error scenarios, and output structure. An output schema exists but is not shown; its presence partially mitigates the need for return value explanation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains all four parameters: vacancy_id as hh.ru ID, resume_id with source hint, cover_letter as text, and question_answers as dict mapping label to answer. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema types.

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 clearly states 'Apply to a vacancy on hh.ru', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_vacancies and get_responses by focusing on the application action.

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 explicitly explains the two-pass flow for vacancies with questions, guiding the agent on when to call without and with question_answers. It also references get_my_resumes for resume_id. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.

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