Search Vacancies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It explains the search functionality and the max_pages parameter with a default of 3, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is clearly formatted with each on a new line and default values. It is well-structured for an AI agent to parse, though could be slightly more streamlined.

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 tool complexity (7 parameters), absence of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers all parameters and their valid ranges. The output schema handles return value description, so the description need not expand on that. However, it could mention that the area parameter expects location names in Russian.

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%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including examples (e.g., 'QA Automation Engineer' for keywords) and valid values (e.g., 'no_experience, 1-3, 3-6, 6+' for experience). This compensates for the missing schema descriptions, though minor details like currency for salary are omitted.

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 'Search for vacancies on hh.ru', specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'vacancies'. The parameter list enumerates filtering options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vacancy_details (single vacancy) and apply_to_vacancy (application).

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 implicitly indicates usage for searching vacancies with filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_recommended_vacancies. No when-not or context exclusions are provided.

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