Suggest Positions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the matching behavior (prefix-based) and that results pair positions with professional role ids, which is useful. It omits whether the call is read-only (implied by 'suggest'), any minimum prefix length, result caps, or pagination.

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 tight sentence with the resource and mechanism front-loaded and the return payload trailing; the '(titles)' gloss removes ambiguity without adding bulk. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and rough return shape but leaves result limits, matching rules, and error behavior unspecified. Adequate to invoke, thin for predicting output.

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 single 'text' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. 'By name prefix' does explain what to pass in text, but it does not specify format, case sensitivity, minimum length, or whether full titles are accepted.

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 (suggest), resource (job positions/titles), matching mechanism (name prefix), and scope (for resumes). The 'for resumes' qualifier implicitly separates it from suggest_vacancy_positions and suggest_professional_roles, though neither sibling is named.

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: 'for resumes' tells the agent the context, and 'by name prefix' hints that a partial string is expected. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or routing to suggest_vacancy_positions/suggest_professional_roles for other contexts.

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