find_jobs_by_setting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the equality condition but does not address case sensitivity, the meaning of 'setting', or behavior with no matches. Basic transparency is achieved, but depth is lacking.

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, concise sentence without superfluous content. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding a phrase about the search behavior), but it earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the basic query logic, but it omits details like handling multiple matches or setting key domains. It is minimally complete for a simple retrieval 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds meaning by naming the parameters as setting key and list value. However, it does not explain valid values or constraints beyond the schema's type, providing only minimal semantic value.

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 the tool's purpose: finding jobs based on a setting key-value pair. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('jobs by setting'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_jobs' or 'get_job' which likely serve broader or different purposes.

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 when filtering jobs by a specific setting, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given sibling names, the context is clear, but no exclusions are mentioned.

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