search_employers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns company info and open vacancy count, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (though page/per_page params exist), authentication requirements, or what constitutes 'company info'. It 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple search tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return type. It could be improved by noting that it returns a list of matching companies rather than a single result, and by mentioning typical use cases or limitations, but it is largely sufficient.

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 already well-documented in the schema. The description adds only that the search is 'by name', which maps directly to the 'text' parameter. It does not provide any additional nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (search) and the resource (companies/employers on hh.ru), and specifies the input (by name) and output (company info and open vacancy count). It distinguishes itself from get_employer (which presumably fetches by ID) and get_employer_vacancies (which fetches vacancies for a known employer) by focusing on name-based search.

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 implies that this tool is for searching employers when you don't have an ID, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over siblings like get_employer or suggest_companies. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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