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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful fact beyond that — that this submits an asynchronous Builder task rather than returning data directly — but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what the destructive/non-idempotent behavior actually implies. No contradiction with annotations.

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 trigger-keyword preamble ('Indeed 公司信息、Indeed companies info、Indeed 公司列表...') is repetitive padding before the real purpose sentence. The genuinely informative content — the task submission and the four modes — is comparatively short and buried behind it.

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?

There is no output schema, and for a task-submission tool the description omits the downstream workflow (that the result is later retrieved via scraper_task_status/scraper_task_result). With 7 parameters and four distinct modes, an agent has enough to call it, but not enough to understand the end-to-end flow.

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 100% and each parameter's own description states which spider_id mode it applies to and whether it is required. The description only re-lists the spider_id values, which are already in the enum, so it adds essentially nothing over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 second sentence states a specific verb+resource: it submits an Indeed company-info collection 'Builder' task, and enumerates the four supported spider modes. This clearly separates it from sibling company tools like linkedin_company_information or crunchbase_company. The first sentence is keyword-stuffed trigger text that adds noise rather than clarity, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 trigger conditions ('when the user needs Indeed company info... with verbs like collect/scrape/fetch'), which is a usable when-to-use signal. However it names no alternatives and no when-not-to-use, so an agent cannot tell why it should pick this over linkedin_company_information or a generic web scraper.

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