boss_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. '查看' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds a useful prerequisite (security_id from search/recommend) plus availability constraints. It does not disclose output shape, error behavior, or the effect of providing job_id, but for a simple detail-view tool this is adequate.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good. It loses a point for the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' text and for embedding availability metadata awkwardly in the same string.

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?

The tool is simple and the essential calling pattern is described, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention how the optional job_id fast path affects behavior. It also does not differentiate from sibling detail-view tools. Overall it is minimally complete but has 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful provenance hint that security_id comes from search/recommend results, but it does not add meaning for job_id, which is already well described in the schema. This is a minor enhancement over the schema.

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 ('查看' / view) and a clear resource ('职位详情' / job details), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like boss_show or boss_hr_jobs_detail, 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 gives clear context by noting that security_id is obtained from search/recommend results, which tells the agent when and how to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it does not reach the full 5.

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