Retrieve full details for a job by its number from previous search or recommendation results, so you can inspect a specific posting without rerunning the search.
按编号快速查看上次搜索或推荐结果中的职位详情 [可用性: 可用性: roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | 职位编号（从搜索结果中获取） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.1v1.18.0v1.17.0v1.16.0v1.11.0Does 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 real behavioral constraint—the tool is only available to the candidate role on the zhipin platform (recruiter_platforms=-)—which is genuinely useful beyond the schema. It says nothing about read-only safety, return shape, or what happens with an invalid/stale number, so the disclosure is partial.
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 sentence with the availability qualifier appended; nothing is wasted. Minor credit lost for the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' artifact, which reads as sloppy metadata rather than deliberate structure.
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, an agent knows how to invoke it but not what the detail payload contains or how it differs from boss_detail. The availability bracket covers the platform/role gate, but the sibling-disambiguation gap keeps it at minimum-viable completeness.
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% and the single parameter already documents itself as the job number obtained from search results. The description's '按编号' adds no syntax, range, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb (查看) and resource (职位详情) plus the mechanism (by 编号 from prior search/recommendation results). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling boss_detail, which plausibly serves a similar job-detail purpose, leaving an agent to guess which one to call.
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?
It implies when to use it—after a search or recommendation produced numbered results—but names no alternatives and gives no exclusion criteria. With boss_detail and boss_recommend among the siblings, the routing condition is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.