get_report_queries_job_details_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'retrieve' and names the HTTP method, but does not mention whether authentication is required, any rate limits, what the response contains beyond the assumed 'job details view', or whether this operation has any side effects. The behavior is minimally implied but not transparent.

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 brief and front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the endpoint is clearly stated in the first sentence. The second sentence is a bit run-on but still compact; no filler words. It earns its place by covering all relevant parameter groups in one line.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the endpoint, HTTP method, and basic parameter placement, which is adequate for a simple GET endpoint. However, it does not mention whether any parameters are mandatory, what filters/pagination options exist, or any constraints on path_params, leaving gaps in completeness for an agent to fully construct a valid call.

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 maps path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required request headers, adding some meaning. However, it does not specify which route IDs, what filter keys are supported, or which headers are required, and completely omits the 'body' parameter from the explanation.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('job details view'), and explicitly names the endpoint. It distinguishes the 'view' variant from the sibling 'get_report_queries_job_details' through the resource naming, though it does not explicitly call out that sibling as an alternative.

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 provides parameter placement guidance (route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers) but gives no context on when to choose this tool over other report query views, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The agent must infer usage purely from the endpoint pattern.

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