get_professional_roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the default response is a 'compact id — name listing' and that setting 'raw' returns the full hh.ru JSON. It also implies a tree structure. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or any side effects. For a simple read-only getter, the disclosed behavior is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences that are direct and efficient. The main action is front-loaded ('Get the tree...'), followed immediately by the use case. No filler words or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description gives enough information about the return: it is a tree of roles, containing IDs, and by default comes as a compact id-name listing. The stated purpose (finding role IDs) implies the output includes the data needed for that task. For a lightweight reference tool, this is sufficient; a sample structure would make it a 5.

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 only parameter 'raw' is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), including its effect on the response format. The description adds little beyond what the schema already explains—it mentions the compact listing, but that phrase appears in the schema description as well. Therefore, the description does not provide significant added semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('tree of professional roles with IDs'), and it clarifies the primary purpose ('find role IDs for vacancy/resume search and salary stats'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_areas or get_dictionaries, which target different reference entities.

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 openly states when to use the tool ('Use to find role IDs for vacancy/resume search and salary stats'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know it is the go-to for role lookups. A more explicit comparison to siblings would push it to 5, but the stated use case is sufficient.

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