Get Resume Phone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one substantive behavior: the access is logged by hh.ru, which signals audit/consent implications. It omits other important traits for an employer-side contact-lookup — whether the returned number is a proxy number, whether it consumes paid quota, and what error results when no phone exists.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical clarification; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the definition must carry the full explanation, and it does not say what is actually returned (raw number, proxy number, or a callback link) or how failures surface. Adequate to identify the tool, insufficient to fully predict its behavior.

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 0%, so the sole parameter resume_id is undocumented in structured fields, and the description adds nothing about its format or provenance. The name is self-explanatory enough to avoid a lower score, but no meaning is added beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("get the phone number of a resume") plus the mechanism ("through hh.ru call tracking"), which clearly separates it from the plain get_resume sibling. It stops short of naming get_resume as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"Employer side" and "the call is logged by hh.ru" imply the caller context and the consequence of using it, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to call this instead of get_resume, whether an active negotiation is required, or what happens if the candidate has no phone on file.

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