Suggest Vacancy Positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return payload ('positions with professional role ids'), which is useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about matching behavior (case sensitivity, empty-prefix handling, result limits) or auth requirements, leaving real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical and return clause both carry information rather than padding.

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, matching semantics, and response content — enough for correct invocation. Remaining shortfalls are sibling differentiation and input constraints, which are secondary here.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; 'by name prefix' does clarify that 'text' is a title prefix rather than a free-text query, which is genuine added meaning. It still omits constraints such as minimum characters, case rules, or whether empty input is allowed.

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 ('Suggest job positions (titles)'), the scoping domain ('for vacancies'), and the matching strategy ('by name prefix'). The 'for vacancies' qualifier is what separates it from the sibling suggest_positions, though the distinction is implied rather than called out explicitly.

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?

'By name prefix' implies an autocomplete/typeahead usage pattern, which is a reasonable inference for an agent. However, it never states when to use this versus suggest_positions, suggest_professional_roles, or dict_professional_roles, nor does it mention prerequisites or minimum input length.

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