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. It does disclose a genuine behavioral constraint (candidate role, zhipin platform only, blank recruiter platform), which is useful. But it says nothing about the read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or output shape expected of a detail-lookup 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?

Front-loaded and short: purpose first, then the required parameter source, then availability. Minor redundancy in the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' prefix slightly hurts polish but nothing is wasted.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-detail tool with full schema coverage and no output schema requiring explanation, but thin overall: it omits error/availability behavior when the platform/role constraint fails and gives no indication of what the detail response contains.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds only the provenance of security_id (from search/recommend), which marginally helps the agent source the value but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource (查看职位详情 / view job details), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like boss_show or boss_hr_jobs_detail, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Provides a provenance hint for the required parameter (security_id comes from search/recommend results) and an availability qualifier (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin), which implicitly tells the agent when it applies. It does not state when to prefer this over other job-detail tools or any explicit exclusions.

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