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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clarifies the relative time window, the org_nature filter, and the include_events toggle, but it does not disclose read-only behavior, result limits/pagination, or any edge cases. The behavior is broadly predictable for a list operation, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 main behavior is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by three compact parameter definitions. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema defaults.

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?

For a simple list tool with three optional, fully explained parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers invocation needs. The only gap is lack of guidance about relationship to sibling tools and any expected result ordering or limits, which would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter documentation, but the description fully compensates: it explains days_within's default and maximum, include_events's default and meaning, and org_nature's allowed values with expansion of '国央企'. This is exactly the added value needed.

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 description states a clear verb and resource: it lists recruitment projects/positions with deadlines within N days. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings search_jobs or get_job_detail, though the deadline/countdown framing makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

The phrase '求职最刚需的倒计时查询' gives a general use case, and the parameter docs clarify the time window and filters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_jobs or get_job_detail, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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