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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the dual-section output, per-section defaults, lookback/lookforward windows, and parameter constraints. Some details like ordering and exact date-boundary semantics are omitted, but nothing is misleading.

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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, use cases follow in the second, and parameter semantics are compressed into two clear lines. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with two optional parameters, an output schema, and no required fields, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage context, defaults, and constraints. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema provides only types and defaults, with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining days as the lookback/lookforward window with range 1-14 and default 3, and limit as the per-group maximum with range 1-50 and default 20.

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 concrete action ('看动态') and a clear resource: recently added jobs plus jobs with upcoming deadlines, presented as a combined feed. It implies differentiation from siblings like list_deadlines and search_jobs, but does not explicitly name or contrast them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicitly names suitable use cases: daily questions about new/expiring jobs and generating campus-recruitment daily reports. It does not provide exclusion guidance such as 'for deadlines only, use list_deadlines', so no when-not-to-use instruction is present.

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