search_vacancies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits entirely. It only states the search capability but omits important details such as pagination (count parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, or result structure. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

Single sentence with the verb and resource upfront, no wasted words. Every part contributes meaning. Highly 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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain pagination, default values, or response format, leaving the agent without essential operational context. Incomplete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the main filtering dimensions (keyword, town, salary), but does not mention the 'count' parameter and lacks detail on how parameters interact. It meets the baseline without significant addition.

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 ('Поиск вакансий' = search vacancies) and summarizes key filtering dimensions (keywords, city, salary). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_vacancy, search_employers, etc., which target different resources.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, no mention that for a single specific vacancy one should use get_vacancy. The description implies usage through its function but does not provide context for exclusion.

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