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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses per-call pricing ($1.50 USDC), a licensing constraint (redistribution requires commercial authorization), and the effect of include_stale on historical data. It omits pagination/truncation behavior and the response shape, which matters for a bulk-export tool.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then the field list, then usage example, then cost/licensing caveats. No filler sentences; every clause adds information.

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?

No output schema or annotations, so the description must cover behavior, and it largely does – cost, licensing, field set, and stale-data handling are all present. The gaps are the undocumented max_age_days parameter and unspecified result format/pagination, which for a '$1.50 per call' bulk tool an agent would want to know before invoking.

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%, so the description must compensate. It covers limit via an example (limit=5000) and explains include_stale's archival semantics, but max_age_days (default 90) is never mentioned anywhere, leaving a meaningful scope parameter undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: '一次拿全当前在招岗位' (fetch all currently open jobs at once), and enumerates the condensed fields returned. It implicitly separates itself from filtered siblings like search_jobs or sector_jobs by emphasizing a full bulk pull, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

States the intended use cases clearly ('用于建库或跑匹配' – building a database or running matching) and gives a conditional rule for one parameter ('要历史归档加 include_stale=true'). It does not say when to prefer a sibling such as daily_delta or search_jobs instead, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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