get_r_company_jobs_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method and endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, response shape, pagination defaults, or any potential side effects. It is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two short sentences with the key information front-loaded. No filler or redundant explanation beyond the endpoint, which is useful for exact route resolution.

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 tool with no annotations and a generic schema, the description is too sparse. It omits which route IDs are valid, what filters/pagination keys are supported, and any prerequisites or constraints. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but invocation details are incomplete.

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 schema provides only generic objects with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add high-level guidance ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, headers in headers'), but it names no specific parameters, formats, or requirements, leaving the agent to guess.

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 identifies the action ('Retrieve jobs view') and the exact endpoint (`GET /r/company/jobs_view`), distinguishing it from ID-specific and report-related siblings by naming the specific resource path. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with `get_r_company_jobs_view_id`, but the verb and resource are clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as `get_r_company_jobs_view_id` or `get_r_company_report_jobs_view`. The description explains where to put parameters but not the conditions under which this tool is the right choice.

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