公司簡介。with_openings=True 附目前職缺；keyword 只列符合的職缺（104 連內文比對）。
公司簡介。with_openings=True 附目前職缺；keyword 只列符合的職缺（104 連內文比對）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | ||
| keyword | No | ||
| company_id | Yes | ||
| with_openings | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Input schema / properties / keywordAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: that keyword does full-text matching including job body text (104 連內文比對), which affects result volume. It says nothing about the `full` flag's behavioral effect.
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?
A single compact line that front-loads the resource and then attaches parameter semantics with semicolons. No filler; the only cost is that the terse phrasing borders on cryptic.
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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description leaves the `full` flag completely undefined and gives no indication of what the company profile response contains. An agent would have to guess at one parameter and cannot predict the return shape.
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 carry the full parameter burden. It explains with_openings and keyword reasonably well, but `full` — one of four parameters — is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving its effect entirely unknown.
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?
"公司簡介" identifies the resource (company profile) but is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it never states how this differs from get_job or search_jobs. The secondary clauses about openings hint at the capability but the core purpose statement is vague.
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 gives conditional guidance for two optional parameters (when to set with_openings, when to use keyword), which is more than nothing. But there is no statement of when to call this tool instead of the sibling job-search tools, and no explicit "don't use for X" guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.