Full record for one verified job by id (from search_verified_jobs): complete summary, the pirch page url to cite, the original posting apply_url (applications happen there — pirch never sits between applicant and employer), verification timestamps, and the matching career-guide link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Job id from search results. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that applications occur on the original apply_url and that pirch never intermediates, adding useful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or auth requirements, but the description implies a safe retrieval operation.
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 efficiently packs key information, but it is somewhat long and could be broken into clearer parts. The core purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundancy. Minimal but effective.
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?
The tool has low complexity with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists the return fields (summary, url, apply_url, verification timestamps, career-guide link), providing sufficient context for a single-record retrieval. Missing details like structure or limits are not critical for this simple tool.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Job id from search results.' The description adds a mention of the sibling tool but no new detail on the parameter's format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides clear meaning.
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 it retrieves the full record for one verified job by id, identifies the source sibling tool search_verified_jobs, and lists the included fields (url, apply_url, verification timestamps, career-guide link). It unambiguously distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is a single-record fetch from search results.
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 implies use after obtaining an id from search_verified_jobs, providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_jobs_overview. The guidance is implicit but clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: get_jobs_overview provides summary counts, search_verified_jobs returns filtered lists, and get_verified_job retrieves full details by ID. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_, search_), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 3 tools, the server is minimally scoped but covers the essential operations for verified job data access. The count is appropriate for a focused read-only service.
The tool set covers the full read lifecycle: overview, search, and detail retrieval. No write operations are needed for this domain, so there are no obvious gaps.
