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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: a per-call price of $0.002 USDC across Base/Solana/Arc via x402, that failed calls are free, and that the feed carries no salary field. The only shortfall is that freshness and pagination behavior are not stated.

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 tight sentences with the substantive content front-loaded: what the feed returns, then cost terms. The field enumeration is slightly list-like but each item is informative, and the 'no salary field' caveat earns its place by preventing a false expectation.

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 need not be explained, yet the description still previews the fields, which helps selection. Source, refresh scope ('newest'), cost model, and a known data limitation are all covered for a simple single-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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('How many jobs, 1 to 50 (default 10)'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about the limit parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not value-adding.

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 names a specific source and scope: newest remote programming jobs from We Work Remotely's programming-category RSS feed, and it enumerates the returned fields. It is far more specific than a bare restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool jobs_weworkremotely, which appears to target the same source, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick without opening both.

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 context is only implied: 'remote programming jobs' suggests when it is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Given two WWR-related tools in the sibling list, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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