List Collection Negotiations

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering defaults, rate limits, authorization requirements, or what a negotiation entry contains. A caller cannot tell whether results are paginated or how many are returned.

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?

Two sentences with a front-loaded purpose statement and no filler, but 'and others' is a vague hand-wave for a 26-parameter tool. The URL-pattern sentence is useful but could be tighter.

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 26 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves an agent guessing about filter value formats, pagination, and return shape. Only the required vacancy_id and the collection concept are adequately conveyed.

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 0% across 26 parameters, and the description only gestures at 'area, experience, education, salary range, age and others', leaving formats, enum-like values, and the distinction between near-duplicate flags (show_only_new vs show_only_new_responses) entirely unexplained. It does not compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list negotiations belonging to the unsorted responses collection ("/response") of a vacancy, and notes the resume-like filter dimension. It separates itself from sibling list_negotiations only implicitly via the collection path, never naming the sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus list_negotiations or get_negotiation. The only guidance-like sentence covers reusing the URL pattern for other collections, which is about a different resource, not about choosing this tool.

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