Related Vacancies

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether vacancy_id must be live/visible, no pagination behavior (despite page/per_page existing), no result ordering defaults, and no statement about result volume or failure modes. The only behavioral content is the structural hint that rare filters live in a nested object.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the core purpose comes first and the filter-tier note follows. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved partly by omitting information rather than by tight editing.

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 20-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, zero annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin — it does not tell an agent how to populate most parameters, what the response contains, or how filtering interacts with the implied employer scope. The complexity-to-description ratio is heavily unbalanced.

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% and the description explains only one structural fact — that the nested 'advanced' object holds rare filters while the top level holds frequent ones. It adds no meaning for the 19 top-level parameters (area, label, metro, period, currency, order_by, search_field, etc.), whose formats and relationships to the nested equivalents are entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Get other vacancies of the employer that published the given vacancy' — which lets an agent distinguish it from a general search in practice. It stops short of naming the closest sibling, similar_vacancies, so the boundary between the two has to be inferred from semantics alone.

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: an agent can deduce it should be called when it wants more postings from the same employer, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of search_vacancies/similar_vacancies when...' guidance and no prerequisites mentioned. The sentence about frequent vs. rare filters is parameter guidance, not when-to-use guidance.

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