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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets matching job lists' based on filters, but does not disclose behaviors like result sorting, pagination, filter combination logic (AND/OR), or whether all parameters are optional. No additional context is provided about authentication, rate limits, or default behavior when filters are absent.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates all parameters. It is concise and efficient, with no redundant or filler content. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return value structure, pagination, or how multiple filters are combined. The absence of any distinction from 'user-search-job' leaves a significant contextual gap for the agent to choose 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying 'jobName' as a keyword (职位名称关键词), providing examples for 'compNature' (国企、外企、民营) and 'salaryKind' (月薪/年薪), and framing 'salaryCap'/'salaryFloor' as a salary range ('薪资上下限'). These details enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema's minimal labels.

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 retrieves a matching job list based on specified parameters, using the verb '获取' (retrieve) and resource '匹配的职位列表' (matching job list). It lists the filter parameters, making the purpose specific. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'user-search-job', which likely serves a similar function.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'user-search-job'. It simply lists the filtering parameters without indicating contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the existence of a similarly named sibling, this lack of usage direction is a notable gap.

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