But for me it doesn't seem natural and it looks so elementary.
This is a business setting, so we can't merely be concerned with idiomatic phrasing; we have to worry about appropriate levels of politeness and formality. I don't know these in any particular detail, so I can't give an authoritative answer, but I can tell right away that a formula like this isn't going to work. You don't want to be asking a direct question, and you don't want to be making the sentence about you (after all, the nature of the work won't change to accommodate you, if you don't like the answer, and it isn't affected by your status).
As a rule of thumb I would not consider using a first-person pronoun like [私]{watashi} in this setting except if the situation required me to distinguish myself from others, or if I needed to accept personal blame or assign personal responsibility.
[私]{watashi}[たち]{tachi} seems to me especially problematic here; assuming you aren't interviewing together with a friend with the prior understanding that you will be accepted or rejected together, there is no "we" to speak of here. You aren't part of a group of coworkers unless and until you're hired, so speaking like that will definitely sound presumptive. (Not to mention, they're already doing the work in question, while you aren't.)
That said, for the second attempt, I want to address idiom/correctness first before formality.
I'm not so sure if that is correct
The instinct is a step in the right direction. The "passive" form in Japanese works a bit differently, and as far as I'm aware doesn't connote indirectness in the way that an English speaker thinks of it. (A large part of why it comes across "indirect" in English is that it allows you to omit the agent of the verb: "the job was done" doesn't require saying who did it, while with "___ did the job", the blank must be filled in. But in Japanese, those omissions are possible regardless, so it doesn't make a difference.) Grammatically, the job should probably be marked with [は]{wa}.
I can't put my finger on why, but using question words like [どんな]{donna} or [どう]{dou}[いう]{iu} as part of a subject or object, without having a topic first, sounds quite brusque to me. They seem to work better with a copula, and anyway we don't need an action verb now that we have the strategy of talking about the job - "what kind of job will be done?" is awkward; we just want "what kind of job is it?".
Expressing that directly in Japanese, we might repeat the noun, and use an honorific:
[お]{o}[仕事]{shigoto}[は]{wa}、[どんな]{donna}[仕事]{shigoto}[です]{desu}[か]{ka}？
However, I agree with jarmanso's idea that we still don't want to ask a direct question. Instead, we phrase it as a request for information. This gives us the necessary business-language opportunities to mark status and formality. (Pedantically, the proposed form is a question about whether we may have the information, so it's that much more indirect.) I don't have any better ideas here (aside from the honorific which I'm not at all sure is called for), so I'll just explain how that proposal works.
[に]{ni}[ついて]{tsuite} at the start of a sentence gives a sort of "more explicit" form of [は]{wa}, while being different grammatically. Whereas in English we need to introduce words like "regarding" to capture the idea of a topic in a grammar that doesn't directly support it, [に]{ni}[ついて]{tsuite} actually has that meaning.
[詳]{kuwa} [しく]{shiku} is just a vocabulary item so I won't spend time on it.
Presumably you know by now that Japanese rarely uses direct imperatives, and will be familiar with [教]{oshi}[えて]{ete}[ください]{kudasai} as a formal version, and plain [教]{oshi}[えて]{ete} as informal version, of a request to [教]{oshi}[える]{eru} (usually glossed as "teach", but more broadly "inform about"; it's used in many contexts where English speakers would say "tell" instead).
[いただけません]{itadakemasen}[か]{ka} deserves a bit more explanation. (You might recognize the positive, non-potential, but still polite form, [いただきます]{itadakimasu}, as an expression by itself.) The plain, positive form is [いただく]{itadaku}, and this verb is the humble-speech replacement for [もらう]{morau}. The "ke" is because we use potential form as well - we ask whether it's possible to be told, not whether we are being/will be told.
So really the sense conveyed is more like "might I not have the benefit of... ?" This way shows appropriate humility, as well as the sense that being given this information is a favor done for you.
