career_deep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important behaviors: that it auto-authenticates using a unified password (so the caller needs no credentials) and that it is read-only. It does not mention rate limits, page-size ceilings, or what happens if the login state cannot be established.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical packing of kinds plus pagination plus auth plus read-only makes it slightly hard to scan.

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 read-only paginated list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (scope, kinds, auth model, read-only). It is silent on result ordering, whether 'full' means it auto-iterates all pages or just returns one page, and on fields returned, which leaves an agent guessing about the pagination contract.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters, their defaults, ranges, and the kind enum already documented in the schema. The description only restates the four kinds and the notion of pagination/full retrieval, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (the employment service site's list) and the four enumerable kinds (campus/jobfair/teachin/news), plus pagination. It implies a distinction from career_latest and career_detail via 'deep' and 'logged-in state', but never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'deep / logged-in / full pagination' suggests this is the tool for comprehensive authenticated listings versus the lighter career_latest or single-item career_detail. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and nothing tells the agent what to do if auto-login fails.

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