How to Attract More Relevant Candidates: 5 Quick Fixes for Better Job Descriptions

All of us who work in recruitment or HR know the struggle: you spend time speaking with the hiring manager, trying to understand what the role is really about, then preparing the job description, improving the text and publishing the job post hoping the right candidates will apply.

And then, what you get is a bunch of irrelevant profiles.

Some people do not have the required experience, others are based in the wrong location or they simply misunderstood what the role was actually about.

Of course, it is easy to blame candidates and say they did not read the job description properly. And sometimes, that is true.

But many times, the problem is also on our side. If the job description is too vague, too generic or even misleading, we cannot really be surprised that it attracts people who are not the right fit.

A job description is not only a list of requirements and responsibilities. It's one of the first signals candidates receive to decide whether the opportunity is worth their time.

So in this article, I want to share five quick fixes that can help you write a better job description to attract more relevant candidates — not perfect ones, because hiring is rarely about finding someone who matches all the ideal criteria, but people who understand the role and can actually imagine themselves doing the job.

1st fix: Name the role correctly

The first thing candidates usually see is not your company culture, benefits or a team video. But it is the job title.

And that is where many companies lose relevant candidates in the first 3 seconds of seeing the job post.

Very often, job titles mirror internal company structures, levels, or naming conventions that might make sense inside the organization, but not to candidates on the market.

For example in the IT world, if you advertise a role called Java Engineer Level 2, people may not immediately understand what you are actually looking for. Is it a senior engineer, a medior role, an advanced junior, or is "Level 2" just an internal salary band that has nothing to do with the actual seniority?

A similar problem happens when companies try to put too many functions into one title.

Let's imagine you are hiring for a Cloud Operations Support Architect.

At first, the role may sound important, but it is not really clear what the job is supposed to be. Are you looking for a support person, an operations engineer, or an architect? Will they design cloud architecture, maintain existing systems, solve tickets, or do a bit of everything? And which cloud are we talking about — AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, or something else?

This type of title can easily create the impression that the company does not know exactly what it wants. Or worse: candidates might understand that the company actually wants three different people in one person for one salary.

So instead of making candidates curious enough to click and read more, it actually pushes the right candidates away.

The opposite problem is a job title that is too generic.

For example if you advertise for a Marketing Specialist, this could mean social media, content, performance marketing, email marketing, brand, marketing automation, or something completely different.

So if you are really looking for a Social Media Marketing Team Lead, but the title says only Marketing Specialist, there is a good chance the right people will never open the job post, because they will not recognise that the opportunity is relevant for them.

Quick fix

Try to look at the role from the candidate's point of view.

Before publishing the job, research how people with this profile actually call themselves on the market. Look at LinkedIn profiles, similar job posts, competitor roles, or ask AI to help you identify common titles based on the responsibilities, seniority level, and technologies involved.

The goal is to advertise a clear job title so the right candidate when seeing it can quickly understand: "Yes, this might be relevant for me."

If it is a marketing role, specify what type. If it is an IT position, mention the area, technology, or function. When leadership is part of the job, make it visible. And if seniority matters, do not hide it behind internal levels that candidates cannot understand.

2nd fix — Be specific and honest about the actual job

This may sound obvious, but many job descriptions are still written in a very general and generic way.

We often write that the person will "manage projects," but we do not explain what kind of projects. We mention "collaboration with the team," without saying how big the team is, where it sits, or who the person will work with most often. Or we talk about "contributing to decisions," but we do not explain what level of decision-making the role actually has.

And then, of course, we add phrases like "exciting company culture," "top-notch technologies," or "dynamic environment," without explaining what is really exciting, what technologies we use, or what kind of environment the candidate is walking into.

Not only such job posts look all the same (and candidates are tired of that). But also, they create two negative effects: 1) relevant candidates do not see anything specific nor exciting about the job so they skip it. 2) the generic job description that "fits all" gets more irrelevant applications. Because more people can actually "see themselves" doing that job and fitting those requirements.

The problem is that candidates have seen this many times already.

So… if your company is solving a specific problem, say it. If the team is building a new product, explain what kind of product. If the role exists because the company is growing, changing, fixing something, replacing outdated systems, entering a new market, or improving internal processes — describe it (this is often much more interesting than a generic list of responsibilities).

The more specific you are, the easier it is for relevant candidates to recognize themselves in the role.

And the more vague you are, the bigger space you create for people to assume that the job might fit them, even when it actually does not.

Quick fix

You can use AI tools like ChatGPT, Copilot, or any other tool your company allows you to use to help you draft the structure of the job description. That is completely fine.

But then you need to add the real information.

Instead of writing only that the person will work with modern technologies, mention the most important ones. If there are upcoming projects, explain what they are about, at least at a high level. And when you say that your company is a great place to work, support it with something specific, because candidates have already seen too many nice claims without real explanation behind them.

3rd fix — Identify your non-negotiables & Shorten your must-haves

Hiring managers and team leads often have the tendency to list everything they would ideally like the candidate to know.

And I understand why this happens.

When you already have a strong team, you naturally look at your current people and think about all the skills they have. Maybe Lucy is great with some technology, John has excellent communication skills, Kate knows a specific tool very well, and together they create a very capable team.

So when you start writing the job description for a new person, you may unconsciously merge all of these skills into one ideal candidate.

The problem is that John, Lucy, and Kate probably did not have all of these skills when they joined your company. They learned many things over time, grew into the environment, understood your systems, and became stronger because they had the opportunity to develop.

However, when you put everything into the requirements section, the role starts to look like a shopping list.

Ten must-have skills. Fifteen requirements. Several technologies. Perfect communication. Stakeholder management. Industry knowledge. Specific tools and domain.

And then relevant candidates may get scared away because they do not match everything. At the same time, some less suitable people may apply anyway, because they do not care about the requirements that much or they simply take their shot.

So you end up losing people who could actually be good for the role, while still receiving applications from people who are not a fit.

Quick fix

Look at your requirements section and separate absolute must-haves from nice-to-haves.

In reality, hiring is often about finding a good compromise. You are trying to find someone skilled, motivated, and capable enough to enter the environment, learn quickly, and perform well after some time.

And very often, you are deciding based on three to five real non-negotiables. Not ten, fifteen or twenty.

Ask yourself honestly: what is truly impossible to perform this job without?

If a specific technology is critical from day one, keep it as a must-have. If another tool can be learned in the first few months, move it to nice-to-have. If some experience is helpful but not absolutely necessary, do not present it as a strict requirement.

Also, be realistic about salary and seniority.

If you are looking for someone who has the combined knowledge of your three strongest employees, then you are probably not hiring for the same level or salary range anymore. You are looking for someone much more senior (and most likely also much more expensive).

Clear requirements do not mean lowering your standards. They simply mean being honest about what really matters.

4th fix — Be honest about the working setup

Be very clear about your home office policy, hybrid model, location expectations, and contract type.

Many companies make the mistake of writing "remote" when they actually mean hybrid. Others promote the word "flexible," but in reality they expect full-time office presence with maybe some flexibility around working hours.

And sometimes this "flexibility" means that you can leave one hour earlier on Friday.

The problem is also that candidates read these words differently.

If you write remote, people may understand that they can work from anywhere. If you write flexible, they may expect real flexibility. If the role is advertised as hybrid, they will naturally want to know how many days are in the office and whether this applies also during the trial period.

When you are not clear enough, you get applications from people who would not apply if they knew the real setup from the beginning.

For example, if your policy is four days in the office and one day from home, but the job post only says "flexible working," you may attract people from other cities, candidates who expect more remote work, or even people from abroad who assume relocation or full remote cooperation could be possible.

Then you call them, screen them, maybe even move them further in the process, and only later you find out that they cannot come to the office as often as you need.

And that is when we recruiters and HRs often blame the candidate, but in reality — if the job description was not clear, the fault was on our side.

The same applies to contract type. If you are hiring only for a standard employment contract, write it clearly. If you are open to freelance cooperation, mention that as well. And if the role is freelance only, do not hide it somewhere at the end of the job description.

Quick fix

Write the working setup in a way that cannot be misunderstood.

For example, two days from home and three days in the office should be written exactly like that. A fully remote role limited to one specific country should not sound like worldwide remote work. Additionally, when the location does not matter but the time zone does — mention the time zone expectation. And if relocation is required, say it early.

Being transparent may reduce the number of applications, but it will also save you time, protect the candidate experience, and help you avoid interviews with people who would never accept the conditions anyway.

5th fix — Sell the story, not only the responsibilities

People usually do not change jobs just to do the exact same thing in another company for the same salary.

But they apply because something attracts them.

Sometimes it is the project. Sometimes it is the product, the manager, the team, the technology, or simply the feeling that this company could be a better place for them.

This is why a job description should not only describe tasks and requirements. It should also explain what is interesting about the role.

Especially in IT recruitment, you are not only selling a software engineer position. You are selling the opportunity to build something, improve something, solve a problem, work with certain people, or be part of a specific technical environment.

So instead of writing only that the person will "develop applications," explain what kind of applications. Instead of saying they will "work on new features," mention what the product does and who uses it. If your company has a strong technical team, interesting architecture, meaningful product, good manager, or a very specific challenge, these are the things that can make the role more attractive.

Of course, your story has to be honest and authentic.

If your company struggles with something, you do not need to pretend everything is perfect. Sometimes being clear that you are hiring because the company is growing, rebuilding an old system, improving processes, or looking for someone who can bring more structure is actually much more authentic than writing only nice phrases.

Candidates do not need a fairy tale. They need a reason to care.

Quick fix

Identify your real USPs (= unique selling points).

What is genuinely interesting about the company, the team, the product, or the role? Why would someone leave their current job and join you? What would they learn, build, influence, or improve?

If you are not sure, speak with the hiring manager, current team members, or even recent hires. Ask them what they find valuable about the company and what surprised them positively after joining.

You can also use AI to review your job description and ask for feedback from the candidate's point of view. For example, ask it what sounds vague, what is missing, what could be more specific, and whether the role has a clear reason why someone should apply.

But again, AI can help you structure the thinking. It cannot tell your story instead of you.

Final thoughts

If your job description attracts the wrong candidates, it does not always mean that candidates are careless or that the market is bad.

Sometimes the problem is much simpler: the role is not named clearly, the responsibilities are too vague, the requirements are too long, the working setup is unclear, or the job post does not explain why the opportunity is worth considering.

And small changes can make a big difference.

A clearer job title helps the right people notice the role. More specific information helps them understand whether they fit. A shorter must-have list can stop you from scaring away good candidates. Transparent home office and contract details save time on both sides. And a stronger story makes your job description feel like a real opportunity.

And if you want to go deeper into these topics, I also created two beginner-friendly courses that may help.

If you are struggling with AI usage in recruitment or you are not sure how to use tools like ChatGPT or Copilot in your daily HR work, you can check my AI in Recruitment & HR: Beginner's Course course. It explains the basics of AI, prompting, and practical ways to use GenAI in recruitment to work faster and more effectively.

AI in Recruitment & HR: Beginner's Course course →

And if you are hiring for IT roles but still feel unsure about technical terms, IT basics, candidate motivation, interviewing, or understanding what tech candidates actually do, my IT Recruitment Essentials course can give you a solid foundation and help you feel more confident when hiring tech talent.

IT Recruitment Essentials course →