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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It effectively conveys the core query behavior and documents defaults and the maximum lookahead, but it does not explain ordering, pagination, what qualifies as a deadline, or how event signals are included beyond the toggle.

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 description is compact and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by terse parameter lines. The phrase '求职最刚需的倒计时查询' adds use-case flavor but is slightly promotional rather than strictly necessary.

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 two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the invocation semantics, defaults, and constraints. It could be more complete about sorting, result limits, or the precise nature of '宣讲会信号', but nothing essential blocks correct invocation.

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 0%, yet the description documents both parameters with defaults and adds the important max-90 constraint and the meaning of include_events. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool lists recruitment projects/positions with deadlines within the next N days, which is a specific verb, resource, and temporal scope. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like search_jobs, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 use case is implied by the 'countdown query' framing and the days_within parameter, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_jobs or get_job_detail, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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