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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains null handling ('未写明的条件留空（null），本服务不猜测'), advises verifying important decisions against source_url, and discloses returned fields such as deadline, status, and data review date. It lacks rate-limit/auth details, but these are less critical for a read/search operation.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the parameter list is compact and structured, with each line carrying operational meaning (defaults, matching behavior, return fields). Slight length is justified by the need to document 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no annotations, the description covers every parameter, defaults, kind semantics, open-status filtering, return fields, null policy, and source verification guidance. Since an output schema exists, detailed return-value documentation is not required.

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%, so the description must document all 8 parameters—and it does, with examples (city, major, graduate_year), enum semantics (kind), default behavior (only_open, limit/offset), and matching rules (major matches 专业要求原文, keywords match job/company name). This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('搜索') and resource ('国央企校招岗位/招聘项目'), with clear condition-based behavior. This naturally distinguishes it from siblings get_job_detail (single job detail) and list_deadlines (deadline-oriented listing).

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?

Implies use when searching or filtering job postings by conditions, and provides rich parameter guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_job_detail or list_deadlines, nor does it state exclusions or alternative routing.

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