Similar Vacancies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only similarity lookup and mentions filter reuse, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, authentication, response shape, error behavior, or what similarity means.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though its terseness may be too little for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, one sentence is insufficient. It references search_vacancies and the advanced object but omits most filter semantics, return behavior, and failure conditions.

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?

The schema has 20 top-level parameters with 0% description coverage; the description only points to search_vacancies for 'frequent filters' and names the nested advanced object for rare filters. It does not explain any top-level filter's meaning, format, or allowed values, leaving most parameter semantics to inference.

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: 'Get vacancies similar to the given vacancy id.' It also relates the tool to search_vacancies filters, but does not differentiate from the sibling related_vacancies, so sibling distinction is only partial.

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?

The purpose implies usage when a vacancy id is available and similar postings are wanted, with optional filters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus search_vacancies or related_vacancies, and no exclusions or conditions are given.

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