Fetch complete job details, including the full post description, for a specified encrypted job ID in recruiter mode.
招聘者模式：查看指定职位的完整详情（包括岗位描述 postDescription） [可用性: roles=recruiter; candidate_platforms=-; recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enc_job_id | Yes | 职位的加密 ID（encryptJobId） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.1v1.18.0v1.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the role/platform availability constraint and that the response includes the full postDescription, and 'view' implies a read-only operation. It does not state whether the call is side-effect free, how errors surface for an invalid enc_job_id, or whether permission/ownership checks apply.
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?
A single front-loaded clause states the action and the key payload, followed by a compact availability tag. No redundant sentences; the bracketed metadata is dense but earns its place as gating information.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (full details including postDescription) and the access constraints. Only the error/empty-result behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.
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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents enc_job_id as the encrypted job ID. The description adds only that the job must be 'specified', providing no additional format, sourcing, or error semantics beyond 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?
States a specific verb and resource: viewing the complete details of a specified job, and names the notable payload (postDescription). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling boss_hr_jobs (presumably the list variant), so it earns a 4 rather than 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 bracketed availability block tells the agent this only works in recruiter mode on the zhipin-recruiter platform, which is useful gating context. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives (e.g. boss_hr_jobs for listing, or boss_ai_analyze_jd for analysis), so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.