Remote Rocketship jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the auth requirement, quota consumption, and that results come back as jobs plus pagination — all traits an agent needs before invoking.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and the auth/quota/return statements are useful. The final sentence 'Does not apply to jobs.' is unintelligible in context and does not earn its place, weakening an otherwise tight four-sentence block.

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 tool with a rich nested schema, full parameter coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, auth, quota cost, and that jobs plus pagination are returned. Only the vague closing sentence and lack of any result-shape detail leave a minor gap.

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% and the nested filters object documents every filter, defaults, enums, and normalization behavior in detail. The description only names the top-level filter facets already implied by the schema, adding no syntax or semantics beyond it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Search) and resource (remote jobs) plus the facet families it searches over (title, country, seniority, salary, technology), so an agent immediately knows what it does. The trailing sentence 'Does not apply to jobs.' is ambiguous and slightly muddies the otherwise crisp statement.

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 supplies real prerequisites — the subscriber API key in an HTTP Authorization: Bearer header and that it consumes the same daily quota as the REST API — which is genuine usage context. However, there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance, and with no sibling tools listed there is nothing to route against.

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