get_r_company_report_jobs_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve' and repeats the endpoint, offering no information about authentication, side effects, or response behavior. The GET-style endpoint implies a read, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety or add behavioral context.

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 short and front-loads the core action, with the endpoint following immediately. It wastes a little space restating the endpoint and using the vague tautology 'required request headers in headers,' but overall it is compact and readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, but with no annotations and an entirely generic input schema, the agent lacks concrete parameter identifiers and any guidance on when this tool is appropriate. The description is too thin for a report-jobs list view.

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, but it only provides coarse placement guidance: route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and required headers in headers. It does not identify specific parameter names, filter keys, pagination format, or explain the unused 'body' parameter.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve report jobs view' and names the exact endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_r_company_report_jobs_view_id or get_report_queries_job_details_view.

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 tells the agent where to place route IDs, filters/pagination, and headers, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of selection criteria, exclusions, or context that would distinguish this report-jobs view from related report job tools.

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