market_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a genuine behavioral trait — the employer-role requirement — which is useful beyond the schema. It does not, however, clarify read-only nature, response shape, or rate/scope limits.

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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and the location parameter unmentioned, the definition is only minimally adequate for an agent to call it 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 0% and all three parameters (keyword, industry, location) are undocumented in the schema. The description maps only loosely onto keyword/industry (技能/行业) and says nothing about location, leaving one parameter entirely unaddressed.

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 (查询/query) and resource (talent supply/demand for a skill/industry), which is distinguishable from siblings like search_candidates or get_stats. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the potentially overlapping get_stats sibling.

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 supplies a precondition (requires employer role), which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_stats, nor any exclusions, leaving usage largely implied.

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