boss_crawl_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '读取' implies a read, but it says nothing about whether results are paginated, the shape of the return, rate limits, or auth/permission needs. For a no-annotation read tool this is thin.

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 front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a structured availability tag. Nothing is wasted, though the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' looks like a formatting slip.

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 filtered-list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and filters but omits the return format and the origin of run_id. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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%: page, run_id, and detail_status are all documented in the schema, including the enum semantics for detail_status. The description's mention of page/detail-status filtering adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: '读取持久化 crawl 职位' (read persisted crawl job listings) with a scope qualifier about filtering. An agent understands this retrieves stored crawl output. It does not differentiate itself from sibling crawl tools such as boss_crawl_status or boss_crawl_shortlist, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 results 'can be filtered by page and detail status' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and does not mention that run_id must come from boss crawl start. Usage is only weakly implied by the read verb.

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