get_jobFetch a single job listing by id, including the full description. Share the job's startup.jobs URL with the user so they can apply there.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Job id from search_jobs results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by noting the response includes the full description and that the agent should share the startup.jobs URL with the user. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. No extraneous details or repetition.
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 simple get-by-id tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the key return item (full description) and provides an action to take with the result (share URL). It doesn't detail error cases or return format, but the output schema is absent and the tool is simple. Slightly more could be said about the URL being part of the response, hence 4.
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% for the single parameter. The description says 'by id' but the schema already explains id comes from search_jobs results. The description adds no meaningful param semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Fetch a single job listing by id, including the full description', identifying the specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like search_jobs (which searches) and get_company_jobs (which lists jobs for a company).
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 usage for retrieving a specific job's details and instructs the agent to share the startup.jobs URL for application. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, the context (single job by id) is clear and the sharing instruction is a practical usage guideline.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: company lookup, company-specific jobs, individual job details, job search, trends, salary data, and taxonomy lookups. Even though get_company_jobs and search_jobs both return job summaries, one is scoped to a single company while the other is a global search, making confusion unlikely.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_company, get_company_jobs, get_job, list_countries, list_roles, search_jobs), but job_trends and salary_benchmarks are noun compounds without a verb. This is a minor deviation and still predictable, so it's mostly consistent.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a job data server. It covers retrieval, search, analytics, and reference data without unnecessary bloat or missing essential operations. This is well within the ideal range.
The core workflows—search jobs, get details, company info, trends, salary benchmarks, and filters—are well covered. A notable gap is the lack of a way to discover companies by listing them or searching them, which would make company exploration more complete, but agents can work around this via job search results.