Remote Rocketship jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: auth header requirement, daily quota consumption, and that results include jobs plus pagination. The closing line 'Does not apply to jobs.' is vague and slightly muddies the behavioral picture rather than clarifying it.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by prerequisites, cost, and return shape. No filler; the only weak element is the trailing 'Does not apply to jobs.' clause, which is small enough not to undermine the structure.

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?

Covers the essentials an agent needs for a nested-filter search tool: what it searches, auth requirement, quota cost, and that it returns jobs with pagination. With no output schema, mentioning the return shape is appropriate, though it stays high-level and the cryptic final clause leaves a minor unexplained behavior.

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 every filter (page, sortBy, visaFilter, keywordFilters, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the high-level filter categories ('title, country, seniority, salary, and technology') without adding syntax, defaults, or normalization detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 ('Search') and resource ('remote jobs') and enumerates the filterable dimensions (title, country, seniority, salary, technology), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. There are no sibling tools, so no differentiation is needed, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives real preconditions an agent must satisfy – the subscriber API key in the Authorization: Bearer header and consumption of the same daily quota as the REST API. It does not state when this tool is preferable to alternatives (none exist here), so it stops short of a 5.

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