get_r_company_jobs_view_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that this is a GET operation and explains where path, query, and header parameters go, which is useful for constructing the request. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or any side effects (though as a GET, side effects are unlikely). The output schema exists, so return-value details are already covered, which prevents a lower score.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and endpoint, then concisely lists the parameter categories. There is no wasted text, though 'route IDs' is slightly awkward phrasing (likely 'route ID' or 'the route ID') but does not harm clarity. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 low complexity of a single-resource GET and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It covers the request structure but lacks any explanation of what a 'job view' is, what the ID refers to, or how this differs from the collection endpoint `get_r_company_jobs_view`. An agent unfamiliar with the domain may not know how to construct a valid `path_params` value without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by assigning roles to the generic parameter containers: path_params for the ID, query for filters/pagination, and headers for required request headers. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it does not specify the exact keys or formats expected within those objects (e.g., what 'filters' or 'pagination' parameters are available), leaving room for ambiguity.

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 states a clear action ('Retrieve job view') and provides the exact HTTP endpoint (`GET /r/company/jobs_view/{id}`), which unambiguously identifies the resource. The mention of 'route IDs' in path_params reinforces that this tool retrieves a specific job view by ID, distinguishing it from the collection endpoint (get_r_company_jobs_view). A minor weakness is that it doesn't explicitly say 'by ID' in prose, but the endpoint makes it 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling `get_r_company_jobs_view` (the likely list counterpart) or other job-related tools. It only explains how to place parameters, not when this tool is the right choice. There are no exclusions or alternative conditions provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the naming convention.

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