search_vacancies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format ('compact paginated summary') and the raw:true option for full JSON, which is useful. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits such as default sorting, pagination limits, or the fact that search is read-only. For a tool with no safety annotations, this is a moderate gap, but the mention of output format provides some transparency.

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 primary purpose and then mentions the return format. It is efficient with no fluff, though it lists many filters which makes it slightly long. Still, it earns a high score for conciseness and structure.

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's complexity (23 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is relatively thin. It does not explain the contents of the 'compact summary' or any prerequisites for using certain filters (though schema descriptions cover those). For such a complex tool, the description could provide more high-level guidance, but the comprehensive schema descriptions mitigate the gap, resulting in a mid-range score.

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%, meaning every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only lists filter categories. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 verb and resource ('Search job vacancies on hh.ru') and enumerates a comprehensive list of filters (keywords, region, professional role, industry, metro, salary, experience, employment form, work format, date range, labels). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_vacancy (which retrieves a specific vacancy) and search_resumes (which searches resumes), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage for searching vacancies but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives such as get_vacancy when a specific vacancy ID is known, or search_resumes for resume search. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the sibling tool names and the tool's own purpose.

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