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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral hint is the word 'search', implying a read operation, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, rate limits, result format, or safety. For a tool with 15 parameters, the description offers almost no transparency beyond the basic action.

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, with no redundant words or filler. It front-loads the core action ('search for remote jobs') and then mentions the key optional filters. It is appropriately sized, though one might argue it under-delivers given the tool's complexity, but the structure itself is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is substantially incomplete. It only references keyword, country, and worldwide filters, ignoring pagination, sorting, employment type, markets, benefits, currency, companies, experience, salary filtering, and exclude_worldwide. An agent relying on this description alone would miss the majority of available functionality, making the tool appear far more limited than it is.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no semantics beyond mentioning keyword, country, and worldwide, which are already described in the schema. It does not highlight that all parameters are optional, nor does it clarify interactions like 'worldwide overrides country' (though the schema does). Thus, the description provides minimal added value over the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific verb+resource: search for remote jobs, using keywords with optional country/worldwide filters. It is understandable but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_jobs or get_related_jobs, which may also return job listings. The mention of 'remote' and 'worldwide' gives some context, but without distinguishing it from other job-related 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_jobs, get_related_jobs, or search_talent. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it over other job-searching tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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