发现招聘信息源

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but no destructive hint. The description says '只写候选和证据' (only writes candidates and evidence), implying side effects. It adds that it queries official, Common Crawl, and Baidu API, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention limits, rate limits, or what happens on failure. Description aligns with openWorldHint but doesn't go beyond annotations.

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 concise, one sentence, and front-loads the key action. It could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient with no fluff.

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?

The tool is complex (6 parameters, multiple providers, writes side effects) yet the description is minimal. Since there is output schema, return values are covered, but missing parameter semantics and usage guidance leave gaps. The description is not complete enough for an agent to use correctly without further inference.

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%, but the description does not explain any of the six parameters (force, city_code, providers, bucket_ids, max_queries, province_code). It only mentions the three providers in passing, but doesn't describe their values or semantics. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 states the tool discovers candidate sources via official catalogs, Common Crawl, and Baidu API, but the main verb 'discover' is somewhat vague about the output. Title '发现招聘信息源' matches. It is clear enough that it finds recruitment information sources, but doesn't sharply contrast with sibling tools like probe_source or list_sources.

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 says '按查询计划' (according to query plan) but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like probe_source or submit_source. No explicit exclusions or conditions are given, so guidance on when to use this tool is weak.

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