boss_hr_jobs_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is a read-only 'view' operation and adds availability context, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, authentication nuances, or any side effects. For a simple detail-view tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds availability information. The duplicated '可用性:' is a minor typo that prevents a perfect score, but otherwise every element earns its place.

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 low-complexity with one parameter and no output schema. The description names the key return content (完整详情 including postDescription) and availability constraints, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not enumerate every possible return field, but that is not critical given the 'complete details' phrasing.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter enc_job_id with a clear explanation ('职位的加密 ID（encryptJobId）'). The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond referencing '指定职位', so it stays at the baseline for fully schema-documented parameters.

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') and resource ('指定职位的完整详情'), and highlights a distinguishing feature: inclusion of the job description field postDescription. The '招聘者模式' qualifier differentiates it from candidate-facing tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to compare against.

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 communicates that this tool is for recruiter mode and specifies availability (roles=recruiter; recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter), giving implied context for when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like boss_hr_jobs or boss_detail, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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