boss_hr_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the role/platform gate the agent needs before invoking. It stays silent on other behavior: nothing about what select=true does, pagination limits, or whether searching has any side effect on candidate records.

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?

It is a single short line, front-loaded with purpose before the bracketed availability metadata, so there is no wasted prose. The bracket notation is compact but slightly opaque compared to plain phrasing.

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 12-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers eligibility but not the return shape, result volume, or pagination expectations. It is adequate to identify the tool but thin for a tool this configurable.

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 every one of the 12 parameters is already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, defaulting, or interaction guidance (e.g., how query interacts with the other filters) beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb (搜索/search) and resource (候选人/candidates) and scopes it to 招聘者模式 (recruiter mode), which separates it from the seeker-side boss_search without needing the schema. The bracketed availability metadata adds mode context but the phrasing is terse and partly encoded rather than explained.

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 availability clause (roles=recruiter; recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter) tells the agent when the tool is callable, which is a real precondition. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as boss_hr_recommendations or boss_hr_applications, and no exclusions beyond the role gate.

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