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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is low. The description adds real value by disclosing what the response actually contains — counts, cities, type/industry, structured facts, hot jobs — which sets caller expectations. It stops short of noting limits, pagination on the hot-jobs list, or behavior for an unknown company.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payload, then the usage trigger — a logical order with no filler. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place since there is no output schema. Slightly long for a single-parameter read.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the single required parameter is fully documented. It is close to complete; only the shape/size of the nested 热门招聘岗位 list and error handling for a bad slug are left unspecified.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema_description_coverage is 100%: the schema already explains that slug accepts a slug such as 'tencent' or a Chinese name such as '腾讯'. The description's '按企业名或 slug' merely restates this, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (获取企业档案) and enumerates the exact payload: 在招岗位数、覆盖城市、企业类型与行业、简介、结构化事实、热门招聘岗位. That company-level scope cleanly separates it from job-level siblings like get_job_detail or search_campus_jobs without needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases — 「这家公司怎么样」「XX 在招什么」 — so the agent knows when to reach for this rather than get_job_detail. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state any exclusion/negative case.

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