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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adds useful behavioral facts: it requires an API Key, returns in 'seconds' via pure SQL, and notes that Chinese URL encoding is handled at the MCP layer. It does not disclose read-only status explicitly or return/pagination format, but the added auth and encoding details are valuable.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one line, then lists parameters compactly. Every sentence adds information—examples, defaults, encoding note—with no filler.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers invocation fully (auth, all parameters, encoding) but does not describe what the search returns (e.g., job fields, pagination total). That missing return-shape context keeps it from a 5.

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 fully. It documents all five parameters with examples, defaults (page_size default 20, max 50; page starts at 1), and semantic cues (city blank = nationwide, category leave blank if unsure). This goes well beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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-resource pair: keyword search of active job postings (在招岗位). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like tpool_get_job (single job retrieval) and tpool_search_announcements (announcement search) by naming the resource as job postings and the method as keyword search.

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?

Provides implicit usage context (keyword required, city blank means nationwide, category can be left blank if unsure), but never explicitly states when to choose this tool over tpool_get_job or tpool_search_announcements, nor any when-not conditions.

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