boss_crawl_results

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful context that results are persisted and can be split by detail-fetch state (completed vs. pending), and it flags platform/role gating. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, ordering, or what happens with an unknown/expired run_id.

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?

Two compact clauses, with the core action front-loaded before the availability qualifier. No filler text, though the bracketed availability string is dense and would read better as a plain sentence.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with three fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, and applicability. The main gap is relational context — how run_id ties back to boss_crawl_start/boss_crawl_status — which the agent must infer.

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%, so all three parameters, including the enum values, are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter dimensions and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond that, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 and resource: read persisted crawl job results, with page and detail-status filtering. An agent can tell this returns stored crawl output rather than live searches, though the description never distinguishes it from nearby siblings such as boss_crawl_status or boss_crawl_shortlist.

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 bracketed availability block gives real scoping guidance (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-), which tells an agent when this tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance (e.g., use boss_crawl_status for run state, this for the resulting jobs), so the choice among crawl siblings is left implicit.

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