Suggest Vacancy Search Keyword

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the core transformation (partial keyword in, full phrases out) on the applicant side. It says nothing about how many suggestions are returned, whether results are locale-dependent, or what an empty match yields.

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 filler; the scope qualifier sits at the end where it belongs. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the behavioral gaps noted above.

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 suggestion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the minimum: what goes in and roughly what comes out. An agent still cannot tell the return shape (array of strings vs. objects), result limits, or how this pairs with search_vacancies.

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 sole parameter is literally named 'text', so the description's phrase 'by a partial keyword' is the only thing giving that field meaning. It still does not specify expected length, prefix-vs-substring matching, or case/locale handling.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('suggest full search phrases for vacancy search') and names the input ('partial keyword'), which distinguishes it from suggest_resume_search_keyword via the '(applicant side)' qualifier. It stops short of naming the sibling outright, so an agent must infer the split from that parenthetical.

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 implied: feed a partial keyword to get full search phrases, presumably for autocomplete before calling search_vacancies. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of when to prefer suggest_vacancy_positions, and no prerequisite or result-count guidance.

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