Search Vacancies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real behavior ("unset fields are not sent") and the response shape (found, pages, clusters for pagination), but omits auth requirements, rate limits, per_page ceilings, and total-result caps an agent needs to avoid failed or truncated calls.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the structural rule that matters most for constructing a call. The phrase "and others" is the only soft spot, and it is genuinely economical rather than redundant.

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 19-parameter search endpoint with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers structure, id resolution, and return fields fairly well. It remains incomplete on the unlabeled top-level parameters and on pagination limits, which an agent must guess.

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 has to compensate. It names roughly half the top-level filters and explains the `advanced` container, but leaves label, period, metro, industry, professional_role, employer_id, only_with_salary, and `others` undefined, and supplies no value formats for area ids, order_by, or dates (those exist only on the nested advanced fields).

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 ("Search vacancies on hh.ru") and additionally explains the two-tier parameter layout that governs how the tool is called. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_vacancy or similar_vacancies, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Gives actionable guidance: put common filters at top level, put rare filters inside `advanced`, and resolve ids first via dict_areas, dict_professional_roles, dict_industries, dict_metro. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when to prefer get_vacancy, similar_vacancies, or related_vacancies over a search.

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