boss_stats

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that this is a read-only operation ("只读") and defines the scope of aggregation, plus the role/platform gating — useful context an agent cannot get from structured fields. It stops short of covering cost, latency, or the shape of the returned metrics.

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 compact sentence with the operation stated first, followed by the aggregation scope and then the availability constraint. No filler; the bracketed metadata is dense but readable and positioned after the core purpose.

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-optional-parameter read-only stats tool this is close to sufficient — the source datasets are named. But with no output schema, the agent still cannot anticipate what the funnel response looks like (stage names, counts vs. rates, per-period breakdown), and the description does not fill that 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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter `days` ("统计窗口天数"), so the schema already defines its meaning. The description adds nothing about the window semantics, defaults, or granularity 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 names a specific resource and computation: "投递转化漏斗统计" (application conversion funnel statistics), and enumerates exactly which data it aggregates (greetings, applications, candidate pool, watch/monitor data). This is clearly distinguishable from the other stats-flavored sibling boss_agent_stats, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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 clause gives real eligibility guidance — roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, and recruiter_platforms=- explicitly tell the agent this must not be used for recruiter-side work. However, there is no task-oriented when-to-use guidance and no explicit routing to alternatives such as boss_agent_stats, boss_pipeline, or boss_digest.

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