Retrieve one Amazon.jobs posting by its numeric job ID from search results to view full role details.
Amazon Jobs single posting. Returns one Amazon.jobs posting by its numeric job id (the id field returned by search).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric Amazon job id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup via 'Returns one posting' and identifies the input's origin, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes when the id is invalid, or rate limits. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free definition.
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 tight sentences. The core action is front-loaded and the sourcing hint follows immediately, with no filler 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 one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it: the resource, the identifier semantics, and where the identifier comes from. Only deep behavioral detail is absent.
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%, so the schema already documents the id field. The description adds value beyond it by stating the id is numeric and is the `id` field produced by the search tool, which guides correct sourcing rather than just format.
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?
States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (one Amazon.jobs posting) and scopes it to a single posting by numeric id. It distinguishes itself from the search sibling by citing that the id comes from search results, so an agent can route correctly.
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 the usage chain clearly: the id is 'the `id` field returned by search', telling the agent to call the search tool first. It gives no explicit when-not or rate-limit conditions, but the retrieval context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.