get_similar_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 behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Find vacancies similar,' which implicitly indicates a read operation, but it does not mention any side effects, return format, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds contextual value (use case). Both sentences earn their place, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the response structure (list of vacancies), pagination details, or that the 'raw' parameter affects output format. An agent would lack key information about what to expect when invoking this tool, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like vacancy_id, page, per_page, and raw. It doesn't elaborate on format or edge cases, but the schema is sufficient, so the description need not 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 tool's function: 'Find vacancies similar to a given one.' It names the verb (find), the resource (vacancies), and the distinguishing constraint (similar to a given one). This differentiates it from siblings like search_vacancies (general search) and get_vacancy (single vacancy retrieval) without ambiguity.

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 gives a use case ('Useful for expanding a candidate's job search') which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_vacancies or state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, and no exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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