boss_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb '查看' (view) implies a read-only operation, and the availability note discloses role/platform constraints (candidate roles; zhilian/zhipin platforms; recruiters excluded). This is genuinely useful context, but the description does not disclose what the detail response contains or any other behavioral traits, leaving a gap.

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 appropriately short: two content sentences plus an availability footnote, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place. Minor deduction for the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' typo in the availability note, which is slightly sloppy but not confusing.

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 tool (2 params, 1 required, no nested objects), the description covers purpose and parameter provenance and adds an availability constraint. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should have noted what the detail view returns, and it never distinguishes itself from ambiguous siblings (boss_show, boss_hr_jobs_detail). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description adds real value beyond the schema by giving provenance for security_id ('从 search/recommend 结果获取'), telling the agent where to obtain the parameter value. This meaningfully aids correct invocation beyond what the schema's type/description fields provide.

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 a specific verb and resource: '查看职位详情' (view job details). This clearly identifies the tool's function even without a title. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like boss_show or boss_hr_jobs_detail that may also surface job information, so it stops short of a 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 provides implied usage context: '参数为 security_id（从 search/recommend 结果获取）' tells the agent this tool consumes outputs of search/recommend and should be called with a security_id. But it never names alternatives or explicitly states when not to use this tool versus siblings like boss_show, so routing guidance is only implied.

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