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 discloses useful traits — no API key required and a daily-refreshed source — but says nothing about rate limits, pagination limits, or result ordering behavior beyond the sort parameter definition.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by a clean Args block with one line per parameter. Every line carries information; no padding or repetition.

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 six-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the definition covers purpose, prerequisites, and all parameters well. The main remaining gap is the shape of the response (result fields, page/metadata), which is not described anywhere.

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 must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all six parameters with examples (「国家电网」,「银行」,「秋招」), defaults (page 1, page_size 15), the sort enum values (deadline/created_at/popularity), and points to the filters tool for recruit_type values. It does not clarify that all parameters are optional.

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 states a specific verb and resource (搜索/搜索校招·国央企招聘公告) and adds scope details: source coverage (国企肩标平台等), daily updates, and no-key access. It implicitly separates itself from tpool_search_jobs by naming the resource as announcements, but never explicitly distinguishes the two.

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?

It gives clear context (no key required, daily-updated source) and routes the agent to a sibling for a needed prerequisite: recruit_type values must be fetched via tpool_announcement_filters first. It offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus tpool_search_jobs.

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