boss_detail

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the availability constraints (candidate role, zhipin platform only) and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, error cases when security_id is stale, or what the response contains. Useful but incomplete behavioral context for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by a compact bracketed availability tag. Nothing is redundant, though the bracketed key=value notation is terse to the point of being cryptic for an agent unfamiliar with the schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite source of the ID, and caller eligibility. The main remaining gap is that it never indicates what the returned job details include, which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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 schema already documents both job_id (fast path via encrypt_job_id) and security_id. The description only adds the provenance of security_id (from search/recommend results) and omits the job_id fast-path entirely. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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?

"查看职位详情" gives a specific verb (查看) and resource (职位详情), so the agent can tell it reads job posting details. The availability tag (roles=candidate; recruiter_platforms=-) implicitly separates it from the recruiter-side sibling boss_hr_jobs_detail, though the description never names that sibling directly.

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?

It states where the required argument comes from ("从 search/recommend 结果获取"), which tells the agent to run boss_search or boss_recommend first, and the availability tag scopes who may call it. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or how it differs from boss_hr_jobs_detail beyond the platform field.

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