get_employer_vacancies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List active vacancies', which is a basic read operation, but it does not mention behavior like pagination, the raw parameter, or how results are returned. The description adds minimal context beyond the obvious, leaving an agent uninformed about the tool's operational nuances.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope. It earns high marks for conciseness, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency. It does not over-eloquently expand, but it's appropriately brief for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with four parameters and no output schema, but the schema covers parameter details. The description lacks context on output format, pagination behavior, or the effect of the 'raw' flag, which an agent might need to know. It is adequate for a simple list tool but not fully complete without annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters—it only repeats the core intent. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers parameter semantics, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 the verb 'List' and resource 'active vacancies for a specific employer', which is specific enough to understand the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_vacancies, but the phrase 'for a specific employer' makes the scope distinct. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_vacancies or get_similar_vacancies. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or conditions that would favor this tool. An agent is left to infer that it's for a single employer, but no explicit direction is given.

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