datasets_jobs_company_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that tech_stack is conditionally included (only when a domain signal exists) and that 404 is returned for missing IDs. This goes beyond a simple 'get' and explains non-obvious behavior, though it does not explicitly state read-only or other side effects.

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?

The description is three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second clarifies the scope, and the third explains the non-obvious tech_stack field and error case. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. Ideal structure for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main behaviors: retrieval by board id, conditional tech_stack field, and 404 on missing id. It could be more complete by describing the expected response structure or fields, but the current detail is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Dataset board id'. The description reaffirms this by stating 'by its dataset board id', adding no new format, constraints, or examples. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the description adds no extra semantic value for the parameter itself.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single company by board id, specifying that it returns one discovered company board. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'datasets_jobs_companies' (plural) which likely lists companies, and provides specific details about the tech_stack field, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implicitly defines when to use this tool (when you have a board id and need a single company), but does not explicitly contrast with other jobs tools like 'datasets_jobs_item'. It mentions the 404 condition and tech_stack condition, which helps in understanding constraints, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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