Retrieve a single Google Careers job posting by numeric job ID, using the id returned from search, to view job details.
Google Jobs single posting. Returns one Google Careers posting by its numeric job id (the id field returned by search).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric Google job id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a safe read operation via 'Returns' and identifies the required id source, but does not disclose error behavior, auth needs, rate limits, or what happens if the id is invalid. For a simple read-only lookup this is minimally adequate but not rich.
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 what the tool does and how the input is obtained. No wasted words, and the parameter dependency is stated succinctly.
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 one-parameter detail tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input source, and return shape sufficiently. It could add error handling or auth context, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.
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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that the `id` parameter is the numeric job id returned by search, which adds valuable provenance for the caller.
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: 'Returns one Google Careers posting'. It also distinguishes this from the sibling search operation by noting that it takes a single numeric job id and that this id comes from search results, so an agent can tell it apart from list/search tools.
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?
It gives clear context for when to use the tool: after a search has produced a numeric job id. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name the search sibling, but the prerequisite is clear and leaves little ambiguity for a detail endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.