Get Vacancy

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the payload (salary, key skills, contacts, branded description) and, by saying 'Get', implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about authentication requirements or what happens when the id does not exist.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned field set. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description does enough: it states the identifier needed and enumerates the notable returned fields so an agent knows the payload is rich. The remaining gaps (auth, not-found behavior) are minor for a tool of this simplicity.

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 description must compensate, and it adds only the hint that the id is 'numeric'. That is genuinely useful given the schema types the parameter as a bare string, but it leaves format, source (which listing returns such an id) and validation unexplored.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of one vacancy') and bounds the scope to a single item fetched by id, which implicitly separates it from the search_vacancies / similar_vacancies / related_vacancies siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing rather than being told it.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its numeric id' hints that the tool is a follow-up to a search that yields ids, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent can reason out the flow from the sibling list, but the description itself supplies no routing guidance.

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