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

注解已声明 readOnlyHint=true 和 openWorldHint=false，表明这是安全的只读操作。描述额外补充了关键行为上下文：days_left 由服务端按北京时间计算，并明确指示直接采用，不要自行推算。这超出了注解和 schema 所提供的信息，但未涵盖返回格式或分页细节。

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?

内容紧凑，前两句话覆盖了用途和排序，第三句说明了使用场景，第四句给出了关键行为提示。每一句都有其价值，但整体结构可以更精简地组织。

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?

对于只读列表工具，注解已覆盖安全语义，描述补充了使用场景和服务端计算天数的关键提示。虽然没有输出 schema，但描述不需要解释返回值。整体信息足够让 agent 正确调用。

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 描述覆盖率为 100%，因此 schema 已完整记录了 city、days、size 三个参数。描述未对参数语义做额外说明，但基于高覆盖率，基线分 3 分是合适的。

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?

明确说明动词和资源（列出即将截止的校招岗位），并说明了排序方式（按截止日期升序）。虽然未直接点名同级工具，但通过具体描述截止日期场景，与 search_campus_jobs 等区分开来。

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?

明确给出了使用场景：当用户问「有什么快截止的」「哪些岗位马上不能投了」时使用。这完全覆盖了何时使用该工具的指导，无需进一步推断。

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