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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing field coverage limits (no salary, location or description fields in the feed, therefore not returned) and the exact billing model: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, with failed calls not charged. That cost/failure semantics is behavior an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

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, zero waste, and front-loaded with what the tool returns before the cost/limitations sentence. Each sentence carries distinct information (content shape, then field gaps and pricing).

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure is covered; the description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs — what the feed cannot provide and what invocation costs, including that failures are free. Nothing material is missing for a single optional-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single limit parameter already documents the 1–50 range and default of 10. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so this is the standard baseline rather than added 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?

States a specific verb+resource (newest remote job postings) and pins the source to NoDesk's public RSS feed, which is what distinguishes it from the dozens of other jobs_* siblings. It also enumerates the returned fields (title, company, link, publish time) and the company-extraction rule from the title.

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?

Usage is implied by the source-specific framing — an agent can infer this is the NoDesk remote-jobs source — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no sibling alternative named (e.g. jobs_we_work_remotely, jobs_weworkremotely). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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